Asia Outspending the U.S. 3:1 in Clean Energy Investment

This new report from The Breakthrough Institute should really rub all you patriots the wrong way (it sure left me frustrated!):

Asia is poised to dominate the fast-growing clean energy industry by outspending the United States by at least three-to-one on infrastructure and technology, according to a new report, Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant, which was released today by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation at an event hosted by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee.

"Should the investment gap persist," the report warns, "the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys."

"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" is the first report to comprehensively benchmark clean energy competitiveness and government investments in clean tech by China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These Asian governments will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government. Climate and energy legislation, which passed the House in June, would contribute $28.7 billion of the $172 billion five year total. China alone will spend $440 billion to $660 billion over the next ten years on clean tech.

The direct, immediate, and coordinated nature of Asian government investments stands in contrast to the sporadic regulatory approach pursed in the United States. The report suggests that government investments will allow Asian nations to create innovation "clusters" of manufacturers, universities, R&D labs, suppliers and other firms, much as the Pentagon helped create Silicon Valley in the fifties and sixties. These clusters will be attractive to U.S. firms, the report argues, which are already making large investments in China.

It is painful to watch the Senate put off critical economic, security and environmental solutions bold Clean Energy legislation legislation until the spring.  Not to mention the idiocy of mainstream media outlets who keep referring to the Senate Bill as "environmental" legislation.

What's the solution?

"Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia's clean tech tigers," the report says. "To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure." 

Read the full report>>

Read Grist's Coverage of the Breakthrough Report, and Winning the Clean Energy Race>>
...

Study Shows Toxins Present at Birth

For all those people who think that reducing pollution is an "environmental" issue that we don't have time for in a recession, give this article a good read:

Pregnant women are often extra careful to avoid toxic products, like certain plastics and chemicals in household cleaners. But a new study of West Coast mothers shows those efforts only go so far. Babies are born already exposed to toxins linked to serious health problems. KUOW's Liz Jones reports.

A handwritten note on Kim Radtke's front door says "Please wash hands before holding baby." Her son, Konner, was born just about two weeks ago.

Radtke is one of nine women who took part in this recent study by the Washington Toxics Coalition. It's a non–profit that lobbies for tougher restrictions on toxic chemicals.

For years, Radtke's eaten organic food. She buys natural products, diligently reads labels and tries to avoid any toxic products.

Schreder: "You know ultimately, this isn't a problem that women can shop their way out of."
That's Erika Schreder. She's a scientist with the Washington Toxics Coalition. She says most people are exposed to toxins through food and everyday products.

Schreder: "So ultimately what we really need are new policies that will ensure that only the safest chemicals can be put in products. And that's really the only sure way to eliminate exposures."

As the father of an 11-week-old daughter, I find it infuriating that companies are still allowed to get away with using chemicals that accumulate in our bodies -- to the point that they are even in newborns.  Once again, what befalls the earth, befalls the people of the Earth...

When will we learn..?

Read more>>

Here's news of a solution-oriented campaign from Seventh Generation...
...

Physicians Group Details Health Hazards From Coal

Among the people benefits of the Green Economy is the boon to public health that we will receive by transitioning from burning fossil fuels like coal to clean energy.

According to a new report from the Physicians for Responsibility:

"Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases," the report (PDF) begins.

Could it be any more clear that solving our climate crisis and our oil dependence crisis is also a great way to help solve our health care crisis?

Read more>>
...

Keeping the Pressure on SFI's Greenwash Forest Certification

Kudos to ForestEthics for their work exposing the greenwash in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative's unsustainably harvested lumber.

For forest products to be truly sustainable, they should be certified by standards that reflect the best available science regarding how to reduce logging's impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services.  For example, the certification standards should minimize the size of clear-cuts, provide adequate buffers of unlogged habitat alongside streams, and avoid logging on steep slopes above streams.

SFI has always fallen far short of it's much greener counterpart, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), when it comes to these types of metrics.

For example, check out this compilation of reports comparing the two sets of standards.  I always liked how plainly this UC Berkeley PowerPoint comparison conveyed their differences (I'd love to see an updated version of it). 

Still, SFI is working hard to break into the green building marketplace.

The swirl of green claims can get confusing to businesses who are working hard to do well by doing good, but don't necessarily have the environmental background, themselves, to know how to separate the green from the greenwash.

I'm glad that organizations like ForestEthics are doing what they are doing to help ensure accountability in the green forest products and building marketplace.

Read more>>

Read the NY Times coverage of the battle between SFI and FSC>>
...

Climate Change Threatens Our Livelihoods and Yours

The heads of the Aspen skiing company and the outdoor apparel company, The North Face, say their businesses are threatened by climate change, and so are you.

For them, it strikes right at the heart of their businesses--affecting even their namesakes:

As CEOs of two of the most widely known consumer brands in the outdoor recreation market -- Aspen Skiing Company and The North Face -- it gets our attention when our companies' namesakes start to vanish before our eyes.

In the summer of 2003, one of the most legendary and fearsome mountaineering routes in the world –– the North Face of the Eiger –– fell victim to climate change. An unusually warm summer melted much of the ice that makes this route in Switzerland passable. As temperatures continue to warm, this iconic passage may only exist in winter.

Meanwhile, in Colorado, aspen trees have begun dying off in huge numbers. Aspens can fall victim to many diseases, but science suggests that a warmer climate will lead to increasing tree mortality as a result of sickness, insect infestations and other pests.

In their line of business, say the CEO's, they are seeing and hearing about climate change from the athletes from around the world who they sponsor:

As our athletes and customers travel the globe, they tell us they see firsthand the changes taking place, from the recession of glaciers to the effects of severe drought. These impacts are having dramatic effects on the people and places many of us have come to love.

So what are they doing about it?  Lots...

And they are strongly in favor of strong climate change legislation:

We also know that these efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done. And that is why a strong global and national climate and energy policy is so important. America is at a critical crossroads on climate change: We can lead the world and jumpstart our economy by spearheading the transition to a low-carbon global economy, or we can delay and fall further behind China and other nations that already have cleaner, more efficient cars, and more established wind and solar power industries.

We pick the first choice, not because we are idealists, but because we are businessmen, and because solving climate change and creating a clean energy economy is a business imperative.  We believe that far from being a drag on economic growth as some fear, comprehensive climate and energy legislation will prove an economic stimulus for the long haul, creating millions of new jobs, spurring technological innovation and stabilizing business. This issue is not an abstraction to people like us. Aggressive action on climate change will preserve and protect the source of our profit and our passion: the stable climate, and the beautiful earth.

That is why we urge the Senate to take action now on a new and comprehensive climate change policy. This is the time for us to be the world leaders that we know we can be, and should be.

I am standing in my office applauding.  I'm also glad that my ski pants are North Face, and that I've spent many a powder day shredding Aspen Highlands and Snowmass.

Read more>>
...

Obama's Balancing Act on Climate Change Messaging

NPR has a well-penned article about the messaging balancing act President Obama faces as he works to advance climate change and clean energy legislation.

In public, the president never makes the case for addressing global warming in environmental terms alone. That bothers Damon Moglen, who works on climate change for Greenpeace.

"You do not see the president doing what he has done on health care: going out into the public and explaining the problems of climate change, and demanding from the Congress a science-based policy commensurate with the risks we face," Moglen says. "So, we need to see much more leadership from Mr. Obama."

Another environmental activist, Jonathan Lash of the World Resources Institute, says the White House approach makes political sense — especially today. He says the president is being pragmatic.

"We're in the depths of the most serious recession that the United States has faced since the Great Depression," Lash says. "We're at 10 percent unemployment, and that's what Americans are concerned about. They need to know that taking action now is not something that will prolong the recession but will help us out of the recession."

Overall, I agree with Lash about the need for pragmatism. However, studies in environmental messaging point to dangers of emphasizing economic benefits alone, and failing to tie in credible, concrete and emotive environmental appeals -- the type Moglen is saying Obama should be using. For example, in my October Yale Forum piece, I noted that:

Studies find that emphasizing the people benefits (e.g., economic, health, etc.) of taking an action is important. However, some researchers point out that emphasizing people benefits alone can actually lead to weaker behavioral changes than emphasizing both environmental and people benefits. Others recommend encouraging fans to imagine themselves as climate change and clean energy trendsetters, and to base their choices on that mission and identity.

Presenting messages in moral terms helps strengthen their influence. For example, an advocate of legislation might argue: "With the incredible environmental, economic, health and security benefits of climate solutions, it's wrong to not support the bill. Taking action is the right thing to do, and you are a good person for doing it!"

President Obama still has some work to do on the messaging front.  Granted, we all do!

Read more>>

Update: Bill McKibben jumps into the mix with a pointed critique of President Obama's approach to climate change messaging - phew!

Update 2: Read David Roberts' response to McKibben -- he says McKibben is wrong to blame Obama, and the real problem is the U.S. Senate.  Is your head spinning yet?  
...

Global Warming and Forest Protection: Making Sure We Get REDD Right

Speaking of the law of unintended consequences...

Scientists have sounded the alarm about the need to properly design schemes to pay countries to protect their tropical forests as a means of slowing global warming.

Deforestation is estimated to contribute about 20% of global emissions of the heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

In a paper published in Current Biology magazine, the scientists warned that the market may target forests that are cheap to protect and rich in carbon and neglect those that have less carbon but more endangered animals and plants.

"We are concerned that governments will focus on cutting deforestation in the most carbon-rich forests, only for clearance pressures to shift to other high biodiversity forests which are not given priority for protection," said the team's joint leader, Alan Grainger, of the University of Leeds.

The scientists, from Britain, the United States, Germany, Switzerland and Singapore, said concentrations of carbon and biodiversity in tropical forests only partially overlap.

They said up to 95 percent of damage to REDD-protected forests could be displaced to nearby unprotected forests.

Their report cited the example of the Peruvian Amazon, where the creation of forest reserves contributed to a 300 to 470 percent rise in damage to forests in adjacent areas.

State workers and public money may be switched to REDD forests, leaving unprotected areas at risk, the paper said.

The scientists also fear that REDD could, perversely, lead countries to delay forest protection measures that they might otherwise have taken anyway, as they await the new agreement and the rewards it might bring.

 What's the solution, then?

They urged countries meeting in Denmark to add rules on safeguarding biodiversity to the text of any deal and consider giving incentives to poor nations that address the issue.

"Despite the best of intentions, mistakes can easily happen because of poor design," Grainger added. "A well designed REDD can save many species."

Read more>>

Some suggestions on how to get REDD right by including private landowners - From Mongabay.
...

Biotech Crops Cause Big Jump in Pesticide Use

The law of unintended consequences is at work in the world of genetically modified crops, reports Reuters:

The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.

The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

Um, shouldn't these things be thought out BEFORE releasing the genetically modified crops into the marketplace -- so that we can be sure that stuff like this doesn't happen?  Oops...

There is a bit of good news:

The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.

But the big picture remains:

Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use.

The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as "Roundup Ready" for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.

With farmers screaming bloody murder about how much climate legislation is going to drive them out of business by raising their fuel costs, you'd think they'd be a little bit more efficient with their herbicide use...

We are all in favor of food supply solutions that help reduce the amount of land, water, fertilizers and pesticides that need to be used in agriculture.  But for the lord's sake, somebody should have seen this toxic mess of a problem coming and taken steps to prevent it.

Read more>>
...

Wall Street Journal Fails America On Climate Change

In its reporting on the Senate's postponement of action on global warming and transitioning America to a clean energy economy, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) today rolled out the shallow and false line of messaging that Congress doesn't have time for environmental issues:

Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

A "long-term environmental issue"?  Really?  That's all?

Former World Bank chief economist, Lord Stern -- among many others -- make clear how action is very much in the interest of a more secure economy.  For just about all of us, America's oil dependence is an economic and national security train-wreck that keeps coming back to bite us in the ass like an energy crisis version of the movie, Ground Hog Day.  Our public health experts tell us that fossil fuel pollution costs our nation untold billions in health care costs -- from direct costs like paying bills for childhood asthma treatments to indirect costs like companies having to pay workers who are home sick with pollution-aggravated maladies.

It's good that the WSJ reporter at least promoted the administration's line that:

"This is an economic opportunity for the nation that will create millions of clean energy jobs while reducing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and it's an opportunity that other countries like China and India are racing to take advantage of," Mr. LaBolt said in an email.

But then he gave equal weight to the tired storyline that:

Momentum for a climate bill has been undermined by fears that capping carbon-dioxide emissions -- the inevitable product of burning oil and coal -- would slow economic growth, raise energy costs and compel changes in the way Americans live.

"It's really big, really, really hard, and is going to make a lot of people mad," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.).

Oh woe is me.  Phew -- somebody get me a towel, it's so really really hard it's like like climbing Mt. Everest while in a sauna with all these fears flying around everywhere!  Have a sip of some positive vision for America, will you, Senator McCaskill?  Then maybe you can help pass smart legislation that revitalizes America and enables us to catch up to the Asian countries that are poised to whoop our ass in the world's most important emerging industries.

The Wall Street Journal is doing the public a huge disservice with crappy, narrow-minded reporting like this, which makes its climate change coverage useful only as toilet paper.
...

New "Electrification Coalition" Calls for 75% of Vehicle Miles to be Powered by Electricity by 2040 - Emphasizes Security Benefits

More than a dozen energy, transport and shipping company executives have just announced the launch of the Electrification Coalition, which calls for 75% of all miles driven in the U.S. to be powered by electricity by 2040.

Woohoo!

Following up on our last post, it probably sounds like smart strategy that rather than focusing on the environmental and global warming-related benefits of electric vehicles, the group's call to action focuses on the national security and benefits first, and (invisible) carbon emissions last.

Here's a clip from their press release:

“It is time for business leaders and policymakers alike to step up,” [FedEx's] Smith said. “Our unrelenting dependence on oil has threatened our nation for too long. Up to now, electrification seemed like a pipe dream. But we are offering a realistic, practical, achievable plan to build a transportation system that will enhance our national security, propel economic growth, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”

Sounds good to me -- and the reality is that this is the type of message that seems to resonate most strongly with the most people.

We'll keep you posted on the progress that this group makes...

Read more>>
...