I always thought that Earth: The Sequel could have been better named. It’s a catchy title, but it sounds like it could be a post-doomsday piece when, in fact, it is the opposite. The book by Miriam Horn and Fred Krupp canvasses the new landscape of green energy companies and entrepreneurs, showing us glimmers of a future economy freed of dirty fuels.

This past week, Discovery Channel brought us the video version of Earth: The Sequel, which followed the road map of the book, but seemed even more uplifting. Maybe the infectious optimism of the green pioneers interviewed was more palpable on video, or maybe I just needed a mood-booster amid  dour times.

It was heartening to hear the developers of wind, solar, solar-thermal and wave-energy projects talking earnestly and hopefully about the immediate future. (Though parts of the documentary were filmed before the economic meltdown last September.)

But there was a dark undercurrent. The vanguard were clearly worried that the playing field has not been leveled because there’s been no price tag placed on carbon pollution in the United States. Coal and oil companies have been allowed to pollute the air without penalty (though within regulations). A cap-and-trade policy would make carbon pollution a part of the market equation — creating a powerful incentive for dirty companies to reduce emissions (and pay for remaining emissions), effectively giving clean tech companies a bonus for not contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.

Pollution would become an economic drag. Finding better ways, a potential boon.

When cap-and-trade was discussed, the entrepreneurs chatted with Krupp became even more animated. They talked about this being the starter engine, the catalyst, the key to breaking through for their businesses.

And as it happens, this week our federal government took an important step that would set up the country for a cap-and-trade system, should Congress decide to go that way. The EPA proposed the first mandatory reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions, noting that the government would need this information to guide its climate change policy.

More than 13,000 businesses/plants would have to compile and report emissions data under the proposed requirement, which would fall under the Clean Air Act and could be approved after a 60-day comment period. Those on the hot seat would include hundreds of power plants – nuclear and coal – as well as oil refineries.

These old-style energy facilities are responsible for the vast majority of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Department of Energy. You can sense that when you drive by a refinery veiled by smog; you suspect it when you read about people suffering from asthma in Appalachia and you see it in the smoke stacks of a coal plant.

Now we’ll get some hard data. Think of it as Our Future: The Prequel.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The latest edition of an annual report by the International Energy Agency was released this week, and while the news may not be unexpected, it’s unsettling nonetheless.

After conducting “field-by-field analysis of production trends at 800 of the world’s largest oilfields, an assessment of the potential for finding and developing new reserves and a bottom-up analysis of upstream costs and investment,” the agency projects that . . . without any new government policies, world primary energy demand will grow a staggering 45% by 2030.

Where the world currently uses 85 million barrels of oil per day, the IEA predicts it will demand 106 billion per day in 2030. Demand for coal, it says, will grow more than any other fuel, and while renewables will grow quickly, “oil will remain the world’s main source of energy for many years to come, even under the most optimistic of assumptions about the development of alternative technology.” (The predictions were actually higher last year, before economic turmoil made slower growth likely.)

That report can’t be bad publicity for Josh Tickell, an activist-turned-filmmaker whose new documentary Fuel is trekking across the country in a series of do-it-yourself theatrical engagements. The film, which has won awards including the Audience doc award at this year’s Sundance festival (and previously drew press attention under the title Fields of Fuel), was inspired by Tickell’s move from Australia to oil-industry-damaged Louisiana, and features interviews about the need for alternatives with everyone from Sheryl Crow to Richard Branson.

Audiences hoping to see the film (and maybe catch a glimpse of Tickell’s “Veggie Van”) can check the schedule here; Portland, OR, Seattle and Texas are the next on the list.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The battle cry “Drill, baby, drill!” has gotten some crowds stirred up at recent political events, and continues to roil through Congress, because many Americans seem convinced — in spite of contrary evidence — that opening up offshore oil drilling will actually bring in more oil, and in turn drive down gas prices.

The economic theory is sound: Build oil supply and price comes down. And the emotional response is understandable, gas prices have put a big squeeze on Americans at a time when the rest of the economy is clearly suffering.

But the strategy is flawed, according to many energy experts who’ve been weighing in for weeks, saying that these offshore locations that have been closed to drilling will not produce a significant amount of oil, and what would dribble in, wouldn’t arrive anytime very soon.

Even the U.S. government’s own experts report that the impact of domestic oil from off-shore drilling would be “insignificant.”

Lifting the 1990 moratorium set on offshore drilling (put into effect after the Exxon Valdez spill by President George Bush Sr. and extended until 2012 by President Bill Clinton) would open up offshore drilling in what’s known as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). But whether it’s in the Atlantic, the Pacific or the Gulf of Mexico, these new oil drilling sites would not “have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030,” according to an issues report by the US Energy Information Administration.

Were it not an election year, the issue might have been raised, explained and retired. Or maybe if gas hadn’t risen so precipitously, virtually doubling in a year’s time, this issue might have evolved differently.

But take a population yearning for a quick and simple solution to sudden sharp economic pain and add two parts politicians and bada-boom, the dialogue seems to have achieved a life of its own.

Neither presidential candidate supported the concept of opening up offshore drilling until this summer.

In June, Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain endorsed it; and in August, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama indicated he might be willing to support it, if it was accompanied with assurance that other alternative energy solutions were also being pursued.

(The issue divide strictly along partisan lines. Republicans who’ve registered opposition to offshore drilling include California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is joined by his Democratic counterparts in Oregon and Washington in worrying about potential environmental harm to the Pacific Ocean.)

McCain, meanwhile, has made it a centerpiece of his campaign, apparently because it has so much political traction, even though the facts don’t seem to warrant it.

As Denis Hayes, a founder of Earth Day and president of the Bullitt Foundation, notes in an essay in Yale’s environment360: “American oil peaked 40 years ago and has been declining ever since. If we want to wean ourselves of our oil addiction while addressing global warming, drilling for just a wee bit more oil is a strange centerpiece for a national energy policy. Even high-end estimates of the amount of new offshore oil produced would be of negligible importance in the world oil market where prices are set…in terms of national energy policy — as John McCain knows full well — it is roughly as useful as banning gasoline lawn mowers.

Congress has felt the pressure too, and a host of leaders began to backslide on their promises to stand firm on offshore drilling. As the price of gas hit $4 a gallon, the clamor from the American public seemed to echo off the walls in DC. Gas has dropped back down some, but as the Republican Convention demonstrates, we’ve still got drilling on our minds.

And so the political dance continues with politicians (who know that this newfound source of oil is mostly a pipe dream) promising to allow it or at least reconsider their position, appeasing the electorate.

Meanwhile, the experts wring their hands. A Sept. 4 report by the nonpartisan think tank the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), lamented that media coverage was treating offshore drilling as a viable solution.

“Oil Drilling In Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The Role of the Media,” found that in 267 television news broadcasts, the EIA data was cited only once and in 91 percent of the news programs sampled, there was no viewpoint presented challenging off-shore drilling as a solution.

“There really isn’t any excuse for the media to ignore the official data on this issue,” said co-author Weisbrot. “It’s like reporting on the economy and ignoring the official date on GDP growth, unemployment, or inflation. No wonder the public is confused.”

The scientific evidence, reported Weisbrot and co-author Nichole Szembrot, shows that offshore drilling would not significantly affect gas prices; producing only about 200,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production in about 20 years, according to the U.S. EIA, or about .2 percent of world oil production.

Yet, according to several polls, many Americans support offshore drilling. A July poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. showing that 69 percent of those polled favored offshore drilling and 30 percent opposed it, though that might reflect a lack of information at that time.

Still, a more recent poll by the Pew Research Center says that offshoring drilling tops Americans’ energy priorities.

SolveClimate, a website that looks at solutions to global warming, takes issue with the poll takers, who, they say, don’t present actual clean energy policy choices to poll respondents. In the a July 28 report on the Pew poll, SolveClimate’s Stacy Feldman debates the legitimacy of a Pew Research question on energy. The question: “What is the more important priority for U.S. energy policy today?” The choices: Expand exploration, mining/drilling; construction of new power plants; more energy conservation/regulation; don’t know.

Forty-seven percent rated energy exploration as the most important.

“Drilling and new power plants won. Big shock,” writes Feldman. She says the poll would have had more weight if clean energy options had been part of the solutions.

On the other hand, another pollster, Belden Russonello & Stewart, recently posed a similar but more specific question: Which of the following is the more important priority for the government: investing in new energy technology including renewable fuels and more efficient cars; or expanding exploration and drilling for more oil? The respondents (76%) overwhelming supported the first option, investing in new energy.

The Union of Concerned Scientists also has been frustrated that the nation’s energy discussion has taken a bee-line boat ride toward the continental shelf.

In an August 20 statement, the Cambridge-based non-partisan science group dismissed offshore drilling as a solution that would have only “a trivial impact on prices — and not for decades” but noted that other measures, like more fuel efficient cars would save American consumes hundreds of dollars a year if not more.

The statement praised the new fuel economy standards mandated by Congress in late 2007 that would require auto manufacturers to produce fleets that get an average of 35 mpg by 2020, which would put the nation in a “position to dramatically reduce demand — which would truly save drivers money and lessen our oil dependence.”

But the group fretted that the government is already considering lowering the required fleet average to 31.6 mpg, based on recommendations by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

For those yearning to hear more about the Democrats’ energy plans, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s vigorous speech Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver opened a more detailed dialogue on the subject.

Schweitzer, a first-term Democratic governor who chose a Republican lieutenant governor, called for “a new energy system that is clean, green and American-made.” He lamented U.S. dependence on foreign oil and what he labeled the Bush Administration’s single-minded focus on drilling to extract more oil, not just abroad but also domestically.

“That single-answer proposition is a dry well, and here’s why,” Schweitzer said. “America consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil, but has less than 3 percent of the reserves. You don’t need a $2 calculator to figure that one out. There just isn’t enough oil in America, on land or offshore, to meet America’s full energy needs.”

In Montana, said the rancher turned politician said, leaders are pursuing oil, but also wind power and coal operations with carbon sequestration; just as the nation will have to pursue many new avenues on the path to energy independence, and to counter global warming. And that includes conservation measures.

“Barack Obama understands the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use. Barack Obama’s energy strategy taps all sources and all possibilities. It will give you a tax credit if you buy a fuel-efficient car or truck, increase fuel-efficiency standards and put a million plug-in hybrids on the road,” said Schweitzer.

Read the full text of the speech on the DNC Convention website. To learn more about Montana’s energy policies, see the governor’s Office of Economic Development website.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

In the race for top carbon emissions polluter, the United States is still Number One, but China is sprinting forward and could soon edge into the lead. The current Olympics host nation accounted for a “staggering 57 percent of the growth of emissions” worldwide this century, and will likely surpass the U.S. as the single biggest belcher of fossil fuel emissions sometime this year, according to the Worldwatch Institute.

The standings right now: The U.S. currently contributes 19.5 percent of global fossil fuel emissions compared with China’s 18.3 percent.

China’s pole vault onto the world stage of top polluters has been fueled by rapid industrialization and huge growth in coal plants, which provide about 70 percent of the nation’s commercial electricity, according to the Vital Signs Update released Thursday by Worldwatch, a Washington research and watchdog group.

Still, the United States can claim one title that leaves China far behind, the United States’ per capita carbon emissions eclipse that of all other nations. They exceed China’s by 4 to 1 and India’s by 13 to 1, according to the report.

The burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – accounts for the majority of CO2 emissions, which means most industrialized nations contribute to the rising cloud of greenhouse gases (which include CO2 and other gases) encircling the globe. Coal is the worst polluter, giving off more carbon gases per unit of energy generated, and it is also the cheapest.

Globally, carbon emissions grew by 20 percent from 2000 to 2007, according to the Worldwatch analysis. Industrializing India contributed 8 percent of that growth. The United States’ and Europe’s emissions accounted for 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively.

As the report points out, accords between industrialized and developing nations, will be key to regulating spiraling carbon emissions. This is one race best run in reverse.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

By John DeFore

California leads the nation in efforts to curb its addiction to oil, according to a report issued this week by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The group’s second annual report is mainly intended to measure each state’s relative vulnerability to rising oil prices, suggesting that while “the federal government has a responsibility to take strong and necessary actions to reduce our oil dependence,” the varied experience of individual state governments “presents our nation’s leaders with an opportunity to gauge the most effective measures and adopt them.”

The report tallies state efforts in four general categories (clean/efficient vehicle use, research and development, clean fuels, and smart growth/transit), most of which are broken into sub-categories of legislative action. California is the only state to take all of the suggested actions in three of the four categories (perhaps unsurprisingly, it comes up short in the smart growth/transit arena), placing it just ahead of competitors New York and Connecticut. (Alaska, perhaps counting on all that oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is doing the least to curb dependency.)

California stood out as the only state to have adopted a low-carbon fuel standard, designed to reduce the intensity of auto-fuel pollution, which was implemented by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year; the defense council notes that states such as Massachusetts are considering those measures but have yet to enact them.

The council measures a state’s vulnerability as the percentage of an average driver’s income going to gasoline, and even that basic data may be an eye-opener: In Mississippi, the most vulnerable state, drivers spent nearly 8 percent of their income filling their tanks (an average of nearly $2,300 per driver) — and that figure is based on 2007 spending, before the price increases seen this year. Connecticut drivers spent the least, at 3.17 percent, while Californians fell in the middle at 5.38 percent.

© Photo by Vasyl Dudenko | Dreamstime.com

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media