Super-kites To Tap High-altitude Wind

(http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/492)

Eventually, All Jobs Must Be Green

Joseph Romm writes:

To perpetuate the high returns the rich countries in particular have been achieving in recent decades, we have been taking an ever greater fraction of nonrenewable energy resources (especially hydrocarbons) and natural capital (fresh water, arable land, forests, fisheries), and, the most important nonrenewable natural capital of all — a livable climate.

In short, we have failed to designed a system capable of lasting prosperity. Quite the reverse.

Like all Ponzi schemes, the system must collapse. When it does, the only jobs left standing will be those that are “green” — which can be defined as those jobs that do not plunder nonrenewable energy resources and natural capital and/or do not to destroy a livable climate.

Continue reading.

Discussing climate changes in terms of economics and standards of living is essential. Focusing on technology as the primary tool in combating climate change is also important. I try to do both whenever I discuss the issue on this blog.

Google Advocates Increased Energy Research Funding

From Google's philanthropic arm, Google.org:

We must quickly develop low-cost renewable and efficient energy technology to avoid the devastating effects of climate change. This requires a strong financial commitment to clean energy research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to achieve big breakthroughs.

Historically such funding has been anemic. After a peak in 1978 of $7 billion, U.S. government funding for energy RD&D dropped by more than 70%. Corporate RD&D fell even more, and funding in the early 2000s totaled just 0.3% of sector revenue, compared to 15% in the biotech sector. Is it any wonder the energy sector has struggled to make progress?

Continue reading.

Google's most important goal in this area is the development of renewable power that's cheaper than coal--even without accounting for the externalities associated with substantially altering the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Such technology is the holy grail of the green movement. Once developed, it would quickly make all economic objections to phasing out coal as an energy source moot. So let's all hope Google (or someone else) is successful in inventing such technology. Doing so in the only path I can see that will allow us to maintain and even surpass current levels of prosperity.

Update:

Google is also trying to keep people focused on smart-grid technology:

Just one week after launching Google's energy information campaign, we kicked off our first joint smart grid event with GE, a larger clean energy collaboration we announced last fall. Our timing was fortuitous; the event took place just as President Obama signed an historic economic stimulus bill that includes $11 billion to modernize the electricity grid.

Continue reading.

Update II:

Also, Climate Progress has a great post up about how large of a reduction of CO2 emissions can be accomplished with currently scalable ("shovel-ready," if you will) technology.

Stimulus Losing Most Valuable Parts

Wired reports:

Does a nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus bill in the wake of $700 billion package that seems to have had little effect sound excessive to you? If so, you're not alone: Two U.S. senators are negotiating to cut $88 billion out of the version of the bill that passed the House of Representatives on January 28.

Sounds reasonable. Until you take a closer look at the proposed cuts, that is.

Among the biggest losers are science, energy and education. Huh? We may be biased over here at Wired Science, but in our view, science, energy and education should be at the top of the list of stimulus priorities rather than the first to go.

Continue reading.

I truly hate the current legislative process. There has to be a better alternative to this madness.

Environmentalism Shouldn't Be Luddism

This is a great example of how not to advance a green agenda:


Meet Green Thing from Green Thing on Vimeo.

Yes, people should take responsibility for living energy efficient lives. But attempting to sell people on voluntarily embracing a lower standard of living is bound to fail. One of the biggest causes of pollution is a lack of sufficiently advanced technology. We can only get out of the current climate crisis by forging ahead in our technological advancement as a species, not by retreating into a technologically deficient past.

Energy efficiency is a crucial front in the struggle against climate change, but building a more advanced energy infrastructure and mandating tough efficiency standards for all future technology are far more effective strategies than everyone turning their thermostats down a couple of degrees. Furthermore, there's nothing inherently problematic about using large amounts of energy. The problem is just that our power source is destroying the planet by drastically altering the contents of its atmosphere. In order to secure further advances in average living standards, we will likely need far more electricity thirty years from now than we currently even come close to generating. But we can get all of that energy from clean, renewable sources such as the sun, wind, and waves.

Environmentalism need not and ought not be Luddism. In fact, it's the opponents of developing advanced renewable power sources who are the enemies of progress. Insisting that our civilization continue to rely on burning coal instead of move on to never-ending sources of energy is profoundly shortsighted. It's the equivalent of those who were upset by the horse's replacement with the automobile.

Finally, I'm well aware of how problematic government involvement in any aspect of the economy can be. However, the status quo is far from laissez faire. The government currently subsidizes bad energy practices do to its corrupt infrastructure spending. But there are serious collective action problems that prevent private enterprise from effectively providing for transportation and energy distribution services without any governmental involvement. And there are also externalities (such as CO2 emissions) that the current energy market doesn't take into account. For these reasons, government involvement in deploying new, green infrastructure is necessary. These changes need to be made and the government is the only agent capable of making them. Investing in more sophisticated energy and transportation systems will provide the lattice on which private sector ventures can grow and flourish.

Update:

Another way to make green policies look bad--the Times reports (via Jeff Yager):

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

Porritt's approach is dumb mainly because this tends to happen on its own when women are educated and families freed from the bonds of impoverishment. Thus, the best way to control populations is to educate women and empower people through the power of the market.

Only 16 Percent Of Stimulus Is Green

Climate Progress evaluates the stimulus bill:

The stimulus package must do more than spark a short-term boost to the economy. It must invest in the nation’s mid- and long-term economic security - and that security must be based on a new energy economy that reverses the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and weans us from our dependence on fossil fuels.

...

By HSBC’s calculation, 16% of the proposed $825 billion stimulus package targets green investments. One of the key questions Congress must ask, and answer quickly, is whether that’s sufficient stimulus for a new energy economy and sufficient evidence of U.S. leadership. Put another way: How much of our children’s money will we spend on life-support for the old carbon economy and how much will we invest to build the new one?

...

By my reckoning, a 16% share of the stimulus package is not enough.

As it puts the final touches on the stimulus bill, Congress should substantially increase the green investment, in part by making sure that every relevant element of the package gives highest priority to reducing carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels.

...

For example, our investment in “shovel ready” road and bridge projects should take greenhouse gas emissions into account, lest we dig ourselves deeper into carbon debt. In a study commissioned by the Presidential Climate Action Project, the Center for Neighborhood Technology concluded that reducing vehicle miles traveled with mass transit and more intelligent urban planning is just as important as new vehicle technologies and fuels in reducing carbon emissions. Yet current federal policy rewards pollution by basing transportation funding on road miles, fuel consumption and vehicle miles traveled. Under current policy, the federal government pays 80 percent of road projects but only 50 percent for mass transit projects. In this case, as in many others, federal spending is moving us down the wrong road.

...

Radical change is what we need now in federal spending. A green revolution to a new energy economy — with all of the financial security and new jobs it would create — should be the core goal of the stimulus package.

Given my horror (not surprise, just horror) at the pork and protectionism rampant in the bill that passed the House, I'm now solidly against that version of the package. But I still believe the green provisions are essential. So how about a $132 billion (16 percent of $825 billion) green-only stimulus? Maybe with some broadband Internet expansion thrown in on top?

I know, I know, keep on dreaming.

Obama Calls Climate Change A Potentially “Irreversible Catastrophe”

Climate Progress reports:

Obama delivered a stirring speech today on his decision to push for California waiver that mandates cut in auto CO2 emissions.

The President has no doubts about the “irreversible catastrophe” we face on our current emissions path — “violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines” — which is no doubt why he chose John Holdren to be his science adviser see “Obama’s strongest message on climate yet“).

For those who misunderstood his inaugural call to action on energy and climate, “Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet,” his speech today should make clear that he is deadly serious about addressing the most deadly serious threat we face (full text here).

It's only a matter of time before Obama does something I disagree with (like pushing through an enormous stimulus package that contains many provisions unlikely to actually help the economy in the long or short term), but for now he continues to impress.

Stimulate Broadband And The Power Grid

A Wall Street Journal opinions piece makes an excellent case for how best to spend stimulus money:

As a new American administration takes office during the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, everyone is understandably fixated on the present emergency -- on what went wrong and how to fix it. There is a growing feeling of desperation, the idea that we must do something -- anything -- to get the world's economic juices flowing again.

Let me offer a different point of view: We shouldn't undertake projects simply for the sake of creating economic activity. Rather than just stimulate, we should transform.

...

Smarter infrastructure is by far our best path to creating new jobs and stimulating growth. We at IBM were asked to map this out by President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, and our research shows that a $30 billion stimulus investment in just three areas -- smart grids, health-care IT and broadband -- could yield almost one million new jobs within one year. That's possible because these kinds of infrastructure have significantly greater economic and societal multiplier effects than traditional infrastructure like bridges and highways.

Continue reading.

I've been convinced for some time that this is the way to go, so I'm excited to see such a strategy being advocated in an influential paper. The fact of the matter is that there's going to be a stimulus package no matter what. So those of us who are skeptical of such governmental interference in the economy might as well spend our energy attempting to direct the resources in the best possible direction.

Chu Is An Excellent Choice For Energy Secretary

Joseph Romm lists five reasons why he's such a big fan of Chu:

1. He isn’t fooled by clean coal claptrap. Earlier this year he said, “Coal is my worst nightmare“:

If coal is to stay part of the world’s energy mix, he says, clean-coal technologies must be developed. But he’s not very optimistic: “It’s not guaranteed we have a solution for coal,” he concluded, given the sheer scope of the challenge of economically storing billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions underground.

Worried about radioactivity? Coal’s still your bogeyman. Dr. Chu says a typical coal plant emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant, given the flyash emissions of radioactive particles.

2. The lab he runs is responsible for developing the technologies that have paid for all the clean energy research the tax payers have ever supported (see Energy efficiency, Part 5: The highest documented rate of return of any federal program). So while even the most knowledgeable clean energy experts focus too much on supply side solutions, Chu will ensure efficiency gets the equal time it deserves.

Continue reading.