Eco-News on the Net

The Gristmill

     

Data highlights on solar energy
by Lester Brown

Concerns about global warming, rising fossil fuel prices, and oil insecurity have prompted calls for a new energy economy, one that replaces fossil fuels with renewables. The sun is an enormous reservoir of energy; in fact, the sunlight reaching Earth in just one hour is enough to power the global economy for a whole year. Harnessing some of this energy is an essential component of Earth Policy Institute’s carbon cutting plan, as presented in chapter 5 of Plan B 4.0. Here are some highlights from the accompanying data on three types of solar energy: solar photovoltaics (PVs), concentrated solar thermal power (CSP), and solar water and space heating.


Annual production of solar photovoltaics reached nearly 7,000 megawatts in 2008. Although this technology for converting sunlight into electricity was developed in the United States, Japan took an early lead in production, surpassed only in recent years by China and Germany. Chinese annual production skyrocketed from 40 megawatts in 2004 to 1,848 megawatts in 2008, nearly five times the output of the United States. Currently almost all of China’s production is for the export market, but several massive domestic installations are being planned.


Graph on Annual Solar Photovoltaics Production in Selected Countries, 1995-2008


At the end of 2008, the world had a cumulative total of 15,000 megawatts in PV installations. Though Germany is far from the world’s sunniest country, government policies have made it the global PV leader, with an installed capacity of 5,308 megawatts. Other countries with large solar installations are Spain with 3,223 megawatts, Japan with 2,149 megawatts, and the United States with 1,173 megawatts.


Rooftop solar water and space heaters that directly convert sunlight into heat have been embraced in a number of countries but nowhere as much as in China. With nearly 80,000 thermal megawatts of capacity (enough for 27 million homes), China accounts for two-thirds of the world’s 120,000 thermal megawatt capacity. Turkey comes in at a distant second with 7,100 thermal megawatts. In per capita terms, Cyprus and Israel lead the list with 0.9 and 0.7 square meters, respectively.


Graph on Solar Water and Space Heating Capacity in Top Countries, 2007


New solar thermal power projects, which use mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a liquid-filled vessel to produce steam that drives a turbine, are coming online again after a 16-year hiatus. Since 2006, world capacity has grown by over 450 megawatts to a total of 820 megawatts, enough to power 156,000 American homes for one year. Scores of new projects are in the pipeline. When those currently under construction are completed, the world CSP capacity will increase almost 4-fold. There are an even greater number of projects in the contract or development stages. In the United States alone, projects under development exceed 10,000 megawatts, 20-times greater than the combined capacities of plants currently in operation and under construction. 


Graph on World Istalled Concentrating Solar Thermal Power Capacity, 1980-March 2010


Avoiding dangerous climate destabilization requires a Plan B: reducing global net carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020. Achieving this goal requires a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy from wind, solar, and geothermal sources. Current trajectories, national targets, and available resources indicate that the 100-fold increase for PV and solar rooftop heaters and the 200-fold increase for CSP, as called for in Plan B, are within reach.


You can download our datasets or read the book to learn more about solar power’s role in the plan to stabilize climate.

Related Links:

Why pricing emissions is the least important policy

On rooftops worldwide, a solar water heating revolution

Challenging conventional wisdom on renewable energy’s limits




Retooling green jobs for the next generation
by Jesse Jenkins

When
you think “green jobs,” do you conjure images of green hard hats, caulk
guns, and tool belts? Well it might be time to start thinking about “green” lab beakers, “green” drafting tables and “green” brief cases as
well, because the careers needed to secure competitive clean energy
industries will also run the gamut from cutting-edge researchers and
high-tech engineers to innovative designers and fearless entrepreneurs,
according to Dr. Henry Kelly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at
the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency.


Dr. Kelly spoke to an audience of Stanford University students Monday about the steps necessary to educate “the Energy Generation,” warning that it will take a generation of the nation’s best and
brightest, working in dozens of diverse fields, to truly build a clean
and prosperous American economy:



So what is a green job? Well green jobs are architects and engineers that build buildings, design buildings that operate at extremely low energy use. They are people that design, manufacture, and install devices in buildings ranging from high-tech windows to lighting
to sensors and controls and electronics. It means looking at radically new industrial processes which simply replace previous kinds of industrial manufacturing with sophisticated bionumetics and nanotech approaches, to cutting down the material intensity and energy intensity of production, this is the kind of thing you need to do to stay competitive in the modern world.


If you look at what the nation’s transportation system is going to look like, Henry Ford looks like he’s toast, it’s going to be replaced with an entirely new generation of either extremely high efficiency fuel powered vehicles, electric vehicles, perhaps even hydrogen fuel cells—the people that make and maintain these are going to be operating in a different world that’s an enormously sophisticated operation.


If you’re looking at where power comes from, of course you have the entire range of science and engineering involved, you mentioned we’re relying on geologists to tell us how to get geothermal energy, getting very sophisticate semiconductor manufacturers involved in the production of solar cells and CSP, if you look at biologically based fuels and materials, some of the most sophisticated biological processing techniques.


So this is an enormous range of skills, but apart from the technical skills you also need people who really understand the economics of finance ... behavioral economics, people who understand policy, all of these qualify as green jobs and it touches I think almost every academic discipline.


The good news is that if we do this right we’re generating a lot of
new interesting jobs, not just for sophisticated designers but for
people who are manufacturing and operating these.



“The bad news,” Dr. Kelly said, is that America’s competitors in
Asia and Europe are surging ahead to develop competitive clean energy
industries and investing in a highly-trained and technically competent
workforce:



If you’re looking at how the U.S. fairs competitively, we have far from the most highly trained workforce. In fact we’re the only country in the top 20 OECD countries where ... the average high school graduation rate is going down. We’re static in university degrees and other countries are bypassing us, and they’re getting degrees increasingly in the sophisticated subjects we need to move forward, both in energy and rebuilding our economy.


So we’re facing this tremendous dilemma, where we have these opportunities to rebuild the economy around sophisticated technology that’s clean, but the ability to turn out people who are able to actually take advantage of these opportunities is declining. It’s something we’re incredibly concerned about.



While attention has been paid in recent years to funding new training programs for “green collar”
technicians, building trades, and manufacturing positions, the federal
government has only just begun to put resources towards training and empowering the wide variety of
cutting-edge innovators, engineers, and entrepreneurs needed to stay
competitive in the 21st century clean energy race.


“The kind of things that you need to do make an economy that is
clean and reducing its fossil fuel consumption is precisely the same
thing you need to do to make the economy productive and competitive
internationally, which means constantly transforming itself around new
technology,” Dr. Kelly said. “If you look at the kind of technologies
we’re talking about, it does touch virtually every part of the
economy.”


With Asian and European competitors pulling farther and farther ahead in competitive clean
technology sectors, the economic stakes of these investments are high.


“There’s little doubt we’re in a race for our lives to maintain our
productivity and competitive edge to keep high tech manufacturing here
in the U.S.” Dr. Kelly declared.


In 2007, Congress passed the Green Jobs Act which authorized $125 million in annual funding to develop training
programs for workers in a variety of renewable energy and energy
efficiency industries. The program was first funded with a $500 million
chunk of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus
bill), and further funds were allocated in the climate bills now
struggling to secure passage in Congress.


While the Green Jobs Act has advanced technical training programs at
the nation’s community colleges and technical schools, funding to
inspire and empower students at four-year institutions to enter a wide
range of careers crucial to competition in the clean energy sector has
languished in Congress.


In 2009, President Obama’s FY2010 budget included a new Department of Energy and National Science Foundation-run program called RE-ENERGYSE,
the nation’s first program aimed at strengthening America’s position in
clean energy education. Despite the urgent need for such a program, Congressional appropriators rejected the $125 million funding request.


The administration hasn’t relented, however, and RE-ENERGYSE is back in the new FY2011 budget request now on its way to Congress. The $74 million program would be the first
small but critical step to re-energize a new generation of scientists,
innovators, and entrepreneurs ready to tackle the United States’ energy
and competitiveness challenges (see this fact sheet for more [PDF]).


Ultimately, however, greater funding will be necessary to help the
next generation of intrepid American innovators rise to the nation’s
clean energy challenges.


“In 1958, right after the Soviet Union launch Sputnik, the U.S.
federal government authorized the National Defense Education Act, which
invested billions of dollars over several years to try and regain our
competitive edge in general science and engineering, and more
specifically in the space race,” said Teryn Norris, the moderator of
the panel, adviser at the Breakthrough Institute, and director of Americans for Energy Leadership, a student-led initiative campaigning across the country for investments in clean energy education and innovation.


With Americans facing a new race to dominate the high-tech fields of
the 21st century, the federal government will ultimately need to secure
investments on the scale of the National Defense Education Act to keep the nation’s competitive edge.


Dr. Kelly and Mr. Norris were joined on the panel by Dr. Lynn Orr, director of the Stanford Precourt Energy Institute and Camron Gorguinpour, director of Scientists and Engineers for America. You can watch a video of the panel here.


Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute and WattHead.org

Related Links:

Job Creation Begins at Home

Why not structure climate bills to win popular support?

Will Sen. Jim Webb Fight for Clean Energy or Dirty Coal?




McMansion modular
by Lisa Selin Davis

Remember when modular homes were going to be part  of the “green” future?  In the post-Dwell, post-postmodern architecture era, pre-fab was going to be cheap, green, hot and hip.  Yes, finally, an antidote to McMansions and an affordable alternative to ballooning home prices.  As if that were not enough,  these stylish boxes were set to erase our previous connotations, where modular meant mobile home and pre-fab equaled Lubbock double-wide.


Photo: Heather Lucille FlickrExcept it didn’t happen.  Modular homes, like all homes, suffered the housing crash, though as we reported last year, there never was quite enough demand to make modular modern homes tumble off the production line; they’re only affordable if they’re mass-produced.


But apparently a new demand has sprung up for modular homes, only it’s not among the green set, or the young, or first-time homebuyers. And it’s not for the modestly sized versions of pre-fab. Rather, according to the Washington Post, mansions are increasingly going modular.


In less than a day-and-a-half, a six-bedroom, six-plus bath, 7,200-square-foot home can appear on a slab of land in any number of charming styles: Prairie, Arts and Crafts, French Country. The one profiled in the Post ran the owners a cool $2.5 million, though an estimated 15 percent less than traditional stick-built homes of that size and level of luxury (replete with elevator shaft).  Nice for them.  And because these Lego-Mansions are raised so quickly, the  construction loans are shorter, and therefore cheaper.


It’s true that  even pre-fab XXL can contain green features, likd geothermal heat pumps and pre-cut walls that defend against mold and mildew.


Yet their very size precludes these homes from being truly green;  it’s just plain environmentally unfriendly to build a home with 10 times as much living space as actually needed. That sentiment recently bubbled to a boil in Berkeley, where a software mogul is building a 10,000-square-foot mansion that is classified as green by the city’s standards; they measure things like water use and building materials for the designation, not size.


The trend of modular mansions isn’t completely new; there’s a 2005 book on the subject that showcases 12,000-square-foot monstrosities.  Presciently, perhaps, even that book predicted these would be “the homes of the future.” While they account for only 3% of newly built homes, their popularity seems to be on the rise.  They are a recession-friendly luxury. 


Don’t blink, the new “green” house next door could go up overnight, and it could be ginormous.



 




How many Venezuelan soldiers does it take to change a lightbulb?
by Ashley Braun

An entire army, apparently.


El Presidente of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, put in big orders for energy efficiency when he commanded the country’s lightbulbs get swapped for CFLs. Why the power play? A drought of hydropower has the nation in energy crisis and the military armed with efficient lightbulbs, laying waste to every wasteful incandescent in their path. The troops are battling against the highest per capita energy use on the continent, but the spoils of war will ease the shift from years of being spoiled by oil.


Viva efficiency!



Via inhabitat

Related Links:

Senators negotiate green economy bill with polluters who deny threat of global warming

How the cap-and-trade controversy could lead to good clean energy policy

Job Creation Begins at Home




Senators negotiate green economy bill with polluters who deny threat of global warming
by Brad Johnson

Cross-posted from the Wonk Room.


As the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman triumvirate works to craft green economy legislation, they’re negotiating with industry lobbyists who deny the threat of global warming. After meeting with President Barack Obama and a dozen industry-friendly lawmakers, the trio of Senate negotiators sat down with representatives of the fossil-based economy:



A cross section of industry power players met this afternoon in the Capitol with Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman. Groups represented at the meeting included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, Edison Electric Institute, Nuclear Energy Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, Farm Bureau, American Forest and Paper Association, American Railroads, National Electric Manufacturers Association, and Portland Cement Association.



It’s perfectly reasonable for senators to meet with industry stakeholders as they work to unleash the clean energy economy. However, half of the lobbyist groups mentioned are legally challenging the threat of manmade climate change, with court petitions against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding:



– The Portland Cement Association, which has filed suit despite supposedly recognizing the need to reduce global warming pollution


– The American Petroleum Institute,  which intends to blame climate policy for higher gas prices at every gas station in America


– The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has repeatedly questioned climate science


– The National Association of Manufacturers, which claims climate legislation is “anti-jobs, anti-energy”


– The American Farm Bureau Federation, which argues there is global cooling



One has to wonder how productive it can be to negotiate with polluters who deny the scientific reality of global warming.


On the other hand, the industry lobbyists thought the talks were “extraordinarily productive.” Tom Kuhn, president of Edison Electric Institute, the lead trade group for investor-owned electric utilities, told reporters:



It was a positive, encouraging discussion. I think they want to try and find ways to make things work from the standpoint of all the participants in that room, from the standpoint of the industrials and the oil companies.



John Shaw, the senior vice president of the Portland Cement Association, said:



It was an extraordinarily productive meeting. I think it was unprecedented for three senators, arguably each from a different political background, if you will, to sit down at a table and invite leaders from all different sectors, to try to create another level of dialogue. They want to start delving into the details, and creating those details with greater industry input than we’ve seen in the past.


Related Links:

How many Venezuelan soldiers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Job Creation Begins at Home

Farm lobby’s lawyer appointed as Ag Committee’s counsel




How the cap-and-trade controversy could lead to good clean energy policy
by David Roberts

On Wednesday, bipartisan groups of legislators from both houses of Congress joined together to support a bill: the Rural Energy Savings Program, which would make low-interest loans available to rural homeowners to fund efficiency retrofits. The loans would come with no upfront cost and would be paid off with a small surcharge on utility bills (so-called “on-bill financing”). The policy is a win-win-win: it would offer financial relief to a demographic that’s hurting badly, create thousands of jobs, and reduce CO2 emissions. The bill is fantastic in its own right, but unless I’m suffering from a bout of wishful thinking (possible!), it also seems indicative of some promising developments in today’s energy politics.


First off, federal legislators are finally beginning to grasp the fact that efficiency can be a winner in every single congressional district. It is a bipartisan, or perhaps nonpartisan, opportunity. This realization has been delayed by years of partisan squabbling over more contentious climate/energy issues like carbon pricing and oil subsidies; lawmakers have become accustomed to energy being just as divisive as health care reform, yet another clash of well-worn, deeply entrenched positions. But if efficiency can be pulled out of that, unburdened of those other controversies, and looked at on its own merits, it becomes clear that it’s a no-brainer. Every district has inefficient buildings and every district could benefit from local jobs.


The Senate Energy Committee held a hearing on energy efficiency on Wednesday to consider four bills that together would “enhance the standards program by establishing or updating efficiency standards for major energy consuming products such as air conditioners, furnaces, and outdoor lighting, as well as several smaller product classes.” (One of the bills is co-sponsored by committee co-chairs Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Today they’re having another hearing to consider the Home Star program (“cash for caulkers”), which has been talked up by the president himself, and Building Star, the recently developed complement focused on commercial buildings. Both programs are expected to come to the floor as part of a jobs bill in the next couple of months.


Small wins like these bills and the rural energy program build political capital in the fight for clean energy. No matter what happens with the big Senate climate bill, Dems should start thinking about putting forward—and publicizing!—more more of these small-bore measures. Each one cracks the door a little wider and broadens the constituency for smart energy policy.


Secondly, I think that the current political climate is ripe for these kinds of small, smart bills. The Senate is under two opposing pressures. From one side, Obama (and the public) are pushing them to address climate and energy. Obama had a bipartisan group of senators to the White House the other day to talk about it. (Direct presidential intervention in negotiations like this is a huge deal.) And of course every poll under the sun shows that the public, including independents and voters in swing states, wants Washington to act.


From the other side, the right wing and its teabagger vanguard have succeeded in completely demonizing cap-and-trade, which has been at the center of climate policy advocacy for years. Whatever senators do, they can’t touch that.


So what do you get if you combine pressure to enact policy with an effective prohibition on enacting the main policy that’s been on the table? Answer: lots of interest in other climate/energy policies. You can see it in the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal, which splits cap-and-trade up into multiple carbon pricing systems (which aren’t cap-and-trade, and don’t you dare call them that!). More interestingly, you can see it in the profusion of free-standing proposals like the efficiency bills discussed above and things like Bernie Sanders’ 10 Million Solar Roofs bill.


Again, maybe I’m wishful thinking, but I hold out hope that this could lead to good things. I do think eventually the political system will have to choke down cap-and-trade (whatever it ends up being called), if for no other reason than to harmonize the regional C&T systems and hook up with the EU system as part of an international treaty.


But as Gar Lipow has been arguing, carbon pricing isn’t the only, or even the most important, climate/energy policy. And it’s the least popular! If the short-term impetus to escape cap-and-trade drives legislators into the arms of these complementary policies—efficiency standards, renewable initiatives, an infrastructure bank, increased R&D funding, whatever—it could do good things for the climate and build popular support and momentum for more action.


The question, of course, is how to keep these freestanding proposals from falling into the same partisan sausage grinder that’s afflicting the big climate bill. Right now, they have a shot at being the rare patch of common ground. But never underestimate the teabaggers’ will to divide. A delicate political dance lies ahead. Should be fun to watch!

Related Links:

Home Star Gets a Hearing

How many Venezuelan soldiers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Job Creation Begins at Home




Where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?
by Jake Schmidt

It is almost three months after the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries that represent over 80 percent of the world’s global warming pollution and some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (as I discussed here). Given the state of the Accord just after Copenhagen with some calling it a failure, some outlining the foundations in the Accord for international efforts (as my colleague discussed here), and others ... well not quite sure what to make of it, where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?


If you just picked up the paper, watched TV, listened to the radio, or read blogs you might think that things aren’t really moving as there is very little coverage of international global warming discussions (especially compared to last year when every 5 seconds some news story or analysis emerged). But that doesn’t mean that nothing is happening on the international front. In fact, despite the lack of regular coverage, things are moving forward—albeit tentatively, behind the scenes, and without a big splash.


Here are four things that are occurring that are worth following:


Over 108 countries have “associated with” the Copenhagen Accord (as summarized here).*  These countries account for over 80 percent of the emissions and 77 percent of the population of the world. The last two major pieces fell into place when China and India formally “associated with the Accord” in the last 2 days (as my colleagues discussed here and as covered by the New York Times). Basically these countries are saying: “we agree to international action on global warming and on the basis of the outlines agreed in the Accord.” Of course many of these countries have urged for deeper action than outlined in the Accord, but by Associating with the Accord they are signaling that they want to proceed internationally to address global warming.


60 countries representing over 80 percent of the world’s emissions have formally recorded actions to reduce their global warming pollution (as I discussed here). Many of these countries aren’t simply waiting for some future international meeting or for the final international agreement to implement specific policies and programs to reduce their pollution. For example, as my colleagues have discussed, China and India have adopted new domestic policies since Copenhagen that will reduce their global warming pollution. Brazil signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S. (available here) and there are expectations that the U.S. will sign another one with Indonesia when President Obama goes there March 20-22 (hopefully with concrete near term actions).    


Key countries will begin to coordinate efforts to address deforestation emissions. Over 15 percent of the world’s global warming pollution comes from deforestation and forest degradation, so the Copenhagen Accord agreed: “on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions [that reduce deforestation and forest degradation].” Key countries including the U.S., Australia, Germany, and France agreed to contribute $3.5 billion over 3 years to “prompt start” efforts to reduce deforestation emissions. It is critical to ensure that the flow of this early money goes to effective actions that reduce deforestation as every second a football field size of rainforest is lost (and it won’t return). So instead of waiting for the next international negotiating session or greater clarity on how things proceed (and more loss of the tropical forests), a group of key developed countries and deforesting countries are meeting as we speak to begin efforts to better coordinate global efforts to combat deforestation.


High-level and influential set of policymakers will be discussing ways to generate sizeable funding to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of climate change. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has created a High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to be chaired by U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, with representatives including George Soros, Nick Stern, and Lawrence Summers. The group is tentatively scheduled to meet March 29 and will provide an initial report to the May/June climate negotiating session and a final report to the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico in December. Let’s hope some politically possible and specific proposals emerge that can be adopted by key countries.


That is the positive momentum that has occurred post-Copenhagen. But of course not everything is all good news. The World Bank is still funding things that are taking us in the wrong direction by proposing to finance a coal plant in South Africa that isn’t capturing its carbon (and doesn’t put in place a real plan to capture it’s carbon in the future), and is barely investing in renewables and doesn’t have a real energy efficiency investment as a part of this proposal. Indonesia is proposing to classify its palm forests as “forests” in order to access money that is supposed to be set aside for deforestation reduction efforts—not exactly the aim of that funding as it is supposed to support things that are slowing deforestation, not actions that deforested rainforests in the first place. Critical actions by the U.S. gained a little momentum when President Obama met with key Senators and made clear his support for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year, but uncertainty about U.S. action still clouds international prospects (let alone holding back the needed investments in job creation, energy independence, and clean energy technology leadership). 


——————


So there is some uncertainty about how things proceed.  In many respects that is only natural as the Summit in Copenhagen wasn’t your normal climate negotiations and the process after the Summit was left unclear. So the world spent a couple of months sorting out what was achieved, how the Copenhagen Accord was to proceed, and what are the next steps for the U.N. climate negotiations. But while that “sorting” was occurring, things proceeded and countries moved forward with actions to reduce their emissions (with some hiccups along the way).


The expectations for the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico this December appear to be focused not on agreeing to the final treaty (as the European Commission just outlined is likely), but rather to making concrete progress to implement the actions that countries committed to reduce their emissions, the finance that is to be deployed in the near- and medium-term, the rules for the “transparency” provisions agreed in the Accord, and the guidelines for efforts to solve the loss of tropical rainforests. Those actions are critical and countries have made it clear that they want those things to proceed, even while they sort out exactly how things will progress this year. 


Now is not the time to sit in a holding pattern and wait for exact clarity on how things proceed.  We must plug ahead and implement key actions that will put the world closer to solving this critical challenge.


—————-


* This includes countries that have formally sent letters to the UNFCCC signaling their desire to be “associated with the Accord” and those that have submitted emissions reduction actions but may not have not clarified in their submission that they want to be “associated.” All values based upon data from the World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicator Tool. Emissions from 2005 and include deforestation; population data from 2006.

Related Links:

On rooftops worldwide, a solar water heating revolution

India backs Copenhagen climate deal

Why are women being left out of climate decision-making?




Colbert grows a ‘crisis herb garden’
by Tom Laskawy

Funny how everything these days is circling back to the garden. Troubled (in every sense of the word) ex-Housemember Eric Massa went on Glenn Beck recently to ... to ... self-immolate. Many progressives tuned in, and thus were exposed to an ad for so-called “Survival Seeds”—a kit for helping you grow your own food in the upcoming apocalypse from precious “non-hybrid” seeds. First bloggers snarked about it. Then, Colbert joined in and brought the big-time funny.










Inspired by the ad, Colbert has already started his “crisis herb garden.” I think there are many Grist readers who can agree with his logic:



Because I may be ready for a world where the streets run with blood, and zombies rule the night and feast on human flesh. But I refuse to live in a world where I can’t garnish.



That said, I recommend turning to Seed Savers or the Territorial Seed Company for supplies instead.

Related Links:

What’s the Proper Role of Individuals and Institutions in Addressing Climate Change?

Colbert interviews Annie Leonard

Garden Girl TV: Raised beds in the city




Jonathan Safran Foer talks with Ellen about the success of ‘Eating Animals’
by Grist

Related Links:

Green Oscar nominees to watch

Ask Umbra on down comforters, soapy gray water, and canned tomatoes

Your car and your meat-eating: the biggest causes of climate change




How to provide relief to rural Americans, create jobs, and lower emissions ... all at once!
by David Roberts

Most homeowners in the U.S. would come out ahead if they invested in energy efficiency improvements—new insulation, sealed windows, more efficient boilers, and the like. So why don’t they do it? Simple: the upfront costs are steep and the paybacks can take a long time. Many homeowners don’t have access to the capital to cover the costs, or they worry that they will move before the the costs are repaid, thus leaving subsequent owners to reap gains they didn’t pay for.


Given the substantial public good served by having these retrofits done—they save consumers money, create jobs, and reduce carbon pollution—how can public policy encourage them?


If you can come up with half the upfront cost, you can use the “Cash for Caulkers” (i.e., Home Star) program that’s going to be passed into law soon. Or if you live in a town or city that can afford one, you can take advantage of a PACE program, which offers loans that cover the initial costs and are paid back over time from energy savings.


Who does that leave out? Who doesn’t have upfront capital and doesn’t live in a city with money to spend on PACE? You guessed it: rural homeowners.


This matters for several reasons. First off, rural homes—over 20 percent of which are manufactured homes—are substantially less efficient than their urban and suburban counterparts. That’s why, even though their homes are generally smaller and their electricity is generally cheaper, the average rural household pays $200-$400 more a year on energy bills than comparable urban households. And given that they make roughly $10,000 less per year, that’s not chump change.


Second, rural Americans are precisely the ones most politically hostile to climate action, which they see as a liberal political program that primarily benefits cities and coastal elites. Direct energy benefits to rural homeowners could help change the political landscape and ease further action.


Enter Third Way, which today released a fantastically clever idea for addressing this problem. You can read the details here, but in brief, it would effectively extend a PACE-like program to rural homeowners. Rather than being administered by cities, though, it would be run by utilities, specifically the customer-owned utility co-ops that serve rural areas. The co-ops would borrow money from the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service and then offer customers the option of having a qualified contractor come out, do an energy assessment, and install efficiency improvements. This would be paid for by a low-interest (no more than 3 percent) loan, paid back over ten years by a small surcharge on utility bills. The loan is attached to property taxes, so it would transfer with ownership. It’s painless, risk-free, and accessible to all homeowners, just like PACE in cities.


The cost?



According to USDA, the total program cost will be $995 million to issue $4.9 billion in zero-interest loans. That includes $755 million in loan subsidy costs, $200 million for a start-up grant fund, and $40 million for program overhead.



That’s beans!


The benefits?



A loan volume of $5.6 billion dollars at these rates would spur the weatherization of up to 1.6 million rural homes in 47 states over the next ten years, eliminating the need for new generating capacity to power 625,000 homes in coal-dependent areas and creating 34,000 new jobs by 2020, including 20,000 new jobs created by the end of 2011.



Jobs, consumer relief, and carbon pollution reduction—win win win. Not too shabby.


The idea was introduced as legislation today, as the Rural Energy Savings Program. In the Senate the bill is co-sponsored by Sens Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D), and Michael Bennett (D-Colo.). A counterpart was introduced in the House by Reps James Clyburn (D-S.C), Tom Perriello (D-Va.), Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), and John Spratt (D-S.C.).


Bipartisan and bicameral! How many legislative ideas can boast those qualities these days? Again: not too shabby.


Said
Graham: “I just thought it was a marvelous idea. This is great
policy when you can take a relatively small amount of federal dollars,
invest it in the economy and empower people to help themselves.” More on the politics of this in a subsequent post.

Related Links:

How many Venezuelan soldiers does it take to change a lightbulb?

How the cap-and-trade controversy could lead to good clean energy policy

Job Creation Begins at Home