At first, I was confused about the resignation of Van Jones, a man so well-suited to his post as the White House Special Advisor on Green Jobs that his tenure should have been long and fruitful. Here was a man who’d founded a human rights organization championing the underprivileged, and then another group, Green for All, that pioneered the idea of re-engaging the working class in progressive new fields of employment like green building and alternative energy. He literally wrote the book on green-collar jobs, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Solve Our Two Biggest Problems (Harper One 2008) before most people had heard the phrase green collar jobs.

Hearing the news of his resignation over the weekend, I consulted the website of Green for All, the Oakland-based project he co-founded and ran before accepting the White House appointment. GFA expressed sadness and obliquely referred to “the buzz and speculation surrounding this news.”

Clearly, this was a murky issue, and Green For All wanted to avoid the mud.

Once I figured out that Jones had been heckled out of his job by right-wing ideologue, Fox News TV commentator and Supreme Heckler Glenn Beck, I knew there had to be lots more to read.

Chris Kelly had a wickedly blunt column on Huffington Post (though it preceded Jones’ resignation and was mostly about Meg Whitman) that drilled right to the core. He concluded that Jones had come under right-wing fire because he was black and a Marxist. “You might even call him a black Marxist. Because of how black he is. And because he’s a Marxist.”

As more news emerged, it became obvious that race was central. Beck had attacked Jones in retaliation for a boycott of his show led by Color of Change, an African-American advocacy group co-founded by Jones and James Rucker. The group was angered when Beck called President Obama a racist.

Ariana Huffington came on board today with a column thanking Glenn Beck for returning Van Jones to the public sector, where he can be more effective anyway: “Van Jones is a thoughtful leader who knows how to use words to move people to action,” she said. “…Now, thanks to Glenn Beck, we’ve got that voice back. No longer tied to his desk with a sock in his mouth, Van is now freed to do what he does best: inspire and energize groups around the country.”

There’s a scary thought, a black man on the loose inspiring the country. Next thing you know he’ll be wanting to speak to our youth about personal responsibility, fortitude and striving to do well in school.

Speaking of voices. Beck, Kelly and Huffington are all notably partisan, albeit at different political poles.

Which makes me wonder what moderate regular folks think? Could it be that most Americans, stressed by health care, job losses, real estate issues and the continuing war in the Middle East, simply see all this yammering as a missed turn in the road to getting things done? (That is, if they’re aware of it at all.)

For the majority of us who reside outside the political fray, this resignation is simply unfortunate because we need a strong leader guiding us toward more sustainable ways, especially here in the US where we gobble an amazing 40 percent of the world’s resources. We need to transition to new energy sources, green building and efficient business operations that can steer us clear of climate change catastrophes. These changes can and will provide economic renewal in the form of green jobs. That’s not just a hope. Green changes are already happening on a micro-scale, in wind turbine plants, on organic farms, at solar plants and electric car facilities.

The high-level post at the fulcrum of the action is so pivotal, and yet so vulnerable.

On hindsight, anyone serving as the green jobs chief was likely to be skewered in a country that still debates whether global warming exists… and is caused by carbon emissions from human enterprises.

Now we need someone who will help bring us together. Someone who can talk to us about personal responsibility.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Camelina sativa, a member of the mustard family, is an oilseed crop that is proving to have a great industrial potential in the near future. Studied throughout the entire process, from planting to plane, Camelina has shown to be one of the more promising alternatives to petroleum jet fuel, according to a study  done at Michigan Technological University.

The oil from Camelina, can be converted and used as an alternative fuel source, say MTU researchers, who conducted the research study in collaboration with Honeywell’s UOP and Targeted Growth.  The findings showed an “80% reduction in GHG emissions for “Camelina Green Jet” compared to petroleum jet (fuel),” said David Shonnard, Robbins Chair Professor of Chemical Engineering on Tuesday.

There are many benefits to Camelina. It is a dry-land crop that can be grown in rotation with wheat, which increases the health of the soil. “After a Camelina crop the land is returned ‘rested’ and ready for another 3 or 4 years of wheat cultivation,” said Shonnard. Camelina requires minimal input as well, so the cost of production is significantly lower than other alternative fuel crops. “Camelina is a short season crop (85 to 100 days) and is frost tolerant so it can be planted early,” said David Shonnard. While Camelina is not a food crop, the excess oil also can be used as feedstock for animals.

For right now, Camelina is primarily cultivated in eastern Washington, Montana, and the Dakotas. As demand increases, Camelina has the potential to be grown in many other dry-land locations, as well as areas that are not currently cultivated for crops.

Camelina oil is compatible with today’s existing fuel infrastructure, so there would be no necessary changes that needed to be made. Even though an exact schedule for commercial production is still unknown, the recent advances being made in biofuel are proving to be promising.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Comments are flying faster than bats heading for a wind turbine in D.C. as all the “stakeholders” queue up to make their case for or against the Waxman-Markey climate legislation being debated next week.

First, our favorite — and this is a real giggle — from U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, the fast-fossilizing Republican from the Dallas area. He’s suggested that Congress not “cap” industrial emissions per se and that it “exclude carbon dioxide from a list of federal pollutants,” according to a McClatchy-Tribune news service report.

Right. Great answer to carbon pollution.

Next up, from a different perspective, our friends in wind power generation. They’re in a panic that Congress, with its perennial tendency to compromise until neither side is happy, will wantonly dilute the W-M bill requirements. Specifically, they’re concerned about the chipping away at the renewable electricity standard or RES, which designates that the country should using a certain percentage of clean energy by a certain year.

Talk was that the RES would be set at 25 percent by 2025– clean, simple. It was what U.S. Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey and President Obama wanted, that 25 percent of U.S. power would come from wind, solar, geothermal and other low-carbon sources, and it would happen by 2025.

But a new draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act now makes that 20 percent by 2020. Doesn’t sound so bad.

But wait, here come the loopholes: Only 15 percent of the electricity would have to come from renewables, the other five could come from “energy efficiency measures”.

A further loophole would allow a governor to reduce the clean energy component to 12 percent for his or her state (this could help “low wind” states), as long as he/she could account for the other 8 percent with “energy efficiency measures” (adding up to 20, see?).

All this slippage is in response to concerns that electricity consumers would suffer increases in their bills at the higher RES. And one argument that does make sense is that not all states are created equal. It will take some innovation to bring solar and wind to places where solar and wind power are not easy solutions, say a non-windy Northern locale.

Still, one can’t help but notice that the D.C. mishmasher has made the new proposed RES more complicated and opens the door for “clean coal,” that quixotic elixir that’s supposed to make coal viably clean but which nobody can afford (that ought to make electricity cheaper) to malinger. Not to mention the potential that some places could stay tethered too long to dirty power sources under the influence of powerful lobbyists, while substituting energy conservation measures (that we should be taking anyway) for real change.

Of more urgent note: The group of U.S. wind executives say diluting the RES would deflate the newbie U.S. clean energy industry, where wind companies are playing catch-up to European firms as well as competing with countries like China.

Yes, they’re playing the job card. But perhaps someone should.

“We are concerned that the significantly lower renewable targets currently being discussed, as compared to proposals from President Obama, Chairman Bingaman and Chairman Markey, will severely blunt the signal for companies like ours that manufacture turbines and components to invest billions of dollars to expand production and our workforces in the U.S.,” said the letter. It was signed by the future wannabe titans of the industry –GE Energy, Vestas Americas, Gamesa, NRG Systems, REPower USA, Broadwind Energy, TPI Composites, PPG Industries, Clipper Windpower and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The AWEA calculates that the wind industry now employees about 85,000 Americans (did I say voters?), counting manufacturing, construction and operations.

A weak RES — talk about taking the wind out of our sails.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Rick Hunter, a St. Louis homebuilder, says he’s always been interested in green construction, but in the past decade has become a true believer that green is the future of building. For him and his three-year-old company, Sage Homebuilders, a green collar job is the whole package.

“We’re small and growing quickly,” says Hunter, a co-founder of the 12-employee company. “It’s fun to see how many people want to be part of this movement. People are getting excited about green collar jobs. They’re meaningful. They make people happier in their jobs and make people feel better about what they’re doing. And you can earn a living.”

In St. Louis, Hunter says, green collar jobs are “absolutely the trend, particularly in green construction.” Sage Homebuilders uses green products in new construction and renovation projects, focusing on upgraded energy systems (like the solar panels pictured on this “Near Zero” energy-saving home).

As the country struggles with an economic downturn and job uncertainty, talk of green collar jobs is becoming a larger part of the national dialogue. Late last month, a national rally Green Jobs Now: A Day to Build the New Economy prompted events in 48 states. The rally, sponsored by Green for All, 1Sky and Al Gore’s WE campaign, focused on the dual cause of social justice and a green economy with events ranging from block parties to solution fairs.

A book on the subject, The Green Collar Economy, by Van Jones hit the book stores Oct. 7 and is already on the New York Times’ best seller list. The Oakland, California-based social activist and Yale Law School graduate is president and co-founder (along with Majora Carter of Sustainable South Bronx) of the jobs-oriented Green For All.

Both Green for All and Jones’ book promote an inclusive green economy that will not only be good for the environment but will help people out of poverty.

Sponsor 1Sky is a new national campaign which promotes federal action in combating global warming. Its scientific-based agenda urges that solutions be put into effect right away to avoid further climate change disasters and to develop a clean energy economy.

The WE campaign, started by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, brings together advertising, online organizing and partnerships to inform the American people of the urgency to address the climate crisis.

So, what exactly is a green-collar job? According to Green For All, it’s a job that will preserve and enhance the planet. These jobs can be found in growing industries that will help reduce our dependency on oil, stop greenhouse gas emissions, remove toxins and shelter natural systems.

Think: People working in the recycling industries; green energy technicians; builders, masons and roofers with LEED know-how; solar panel installers; steel workers who make wind turbines; electricity company employees who counsel homeowners; hybrid car manufacturers; organic farmers; green landscapers; waste water workers; printers using green techniques; environmental science teachers and sustainability advisers in towns everywhere.

Green collar jobs will require some new skills or rethinking of old skills. Many green collar jobs are middle-skill positions that require more than a high school diploma but maybe less than a college degree. Not only are these jobs well-paying and career-tracked, but they are also domestic. And, says Van Jones, a green job should be within reach for the lower-skilled and low-income worker by giving them access to good training and support programs.

A green-collar job could include, for instance, cleaning up “brownfields,” abandoned or under-used industrial and commercial facilities, or even decaying open urban fields, that are available for re-use.

Mainstream, affordable solar power is not just pie (or energy) in the sky. So say MIT researchers who have devised a process to store solar energy for use when the sun doesn’t shine.

Photo: Donna Coveney
 
MIT professor Dan Nocera

Massachusetts Institute of Technology energy professor Dan Nocera and post-doctoral fellow Matthew Kanan have found a way to harness the sun’s energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases, according to an effusive announcement today by the university. The oxygen and hydrogen then can be recombined inside a fuel cell that can produce carbon-free electricity for homes and electric cars – regardless of whether it’s day or night.

The researchers say the process is so simple it could be powering our lives within a decade, triggering nothing less than a “solar revolution”, according to the MIT news office.

Nocera and Kanan were inspired by photosynthesis – the energy storage system of plants. In their work, the scientists came up with a system that duplicates the water-splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis and then used the fuel cell to store that energy.

A fuel cell is similar to a battery in that it produces electricity by converting the energy released from a chemical reaction into electric power. The two differ in how they are fueled – batteries have an internal fuel source that keeps them charged; fuel cells have an external fuel source – usually hydrogen gas. Fuel cells produce electricity as long as fuel is supplied. As a result fuel cells never need electrical recharging.

The MIT process requires a special catalyst made of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. But it is relatively simple to set up and works at room temperature, according to the MIT release. “That’s why I know this is going to work. It’s so easy to implement,” Nocera said in the MIT statement. (For more from Nocera see the MIT Tech TV video.)

The operation of the fuel cell is relatively simple, but until now, they have been expensive to make, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, an entrepreneurial nonprofit organization that advocates for the efficient use of resources for a sustainable world. At the moment, fuel cells cost more than traditional power sources, but that may be a thing of the past, thanks to MIT’s latest discovery.

“This is the nirvana of what we’ve been talking about for years,” said Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy, in the July 31 issue of Science. “Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon.”

Nocera believes that within a decade, homeowners will be able to power their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells. The excess solar energy will then produce hydrogen and oxygen that in turn will generate household fuel cells. He says that electricity-by-wire from a central source — the “grid” power system — will be history.

Department of Energy spokesperson Jennifer Scoggins says that the DOE will be reviewing the MIT discovery, but couldn’t comment on it at this time. The MIT news, she says, coincides with what the DOE is doing in terms of researching ways to make solar cost competitive.

“And not just solar,” she adds, “but wind and geo-thermal – all clean energy sources. We’re already seeing breakthroughs.”

Brian Palmintier, a fellow with the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Resource and Energy team says the findings are potentially exciting because “the concept of storing solar energy is huge” But he had not reviewed the MIT results yet and had reservations about how practical the process would be.

For the immediate future, he said, researchers should be looking at not just solar, but wind and geo-thermal energy solutions, and “at balancing clean energy with the existing grid system.”

The MIT project was funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Chesonis Family Foundation, which gave MIT $10 million to launch the Solar Revolution Project.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The bill, The Jobs, Energy, Families & Disaster Relief Act of 2008, would offer energy-related tax incentives to consumers and businesses, and includes a new provision that would provide a tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles. But for all its timeliness, it has not been a slam-dunk in Congress, where Democrats and Republicans have been locked in debate over how to fund the tax credits. A vote Wednesday on whether to continue to debate the bill suggested it may be killed, going the way of previous proposals on the same topic deep-sixed earlier this year.

The Alliance to Save Energy sees the tax incentives as economically wise because they would do double duty – helping consumers strapped by high food and gas prices, while also assisting businesses selling the covered home improvements. The net effect: an overall boost to the economy, especially the green sector. All of which prompted the Alliance to issue a new release asking senators to “move beyond partisan bickering” to “help Americans meet the challenge of spiraling energy costs.”

“At a time when American households are paying an estimated $6,300 a year in total energy costs, it is simply inexcusable for Congress to leave for the August recess without approving the ‘extenders’ bill,” said Alliance President Kateri Callahan in a news release.

The Alliance, whose board is composed of Democratic and Republican senators, representatives from companies like Dow Chemical Company and Washington Gas, as well as policy groups like the Edison Electric Institute and the National Resources Defense Council, is among many organizations advocating for the tax incentive bill.

Senate Bill 3335 would:

• Extend consumer income tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades to existing homes through 2008.

• Extend business tax credits through 2013 for energy-efficient commercial buildings.

• Modify and extend through 2010 the energy-efficient tax credits for appliance manufacturers producing greener products

• Introduce a new $3,000 tax credit for qualified plug-in electric drive vehicles.

• Extend tax incentives for certain types of wind and geothermal energy installations.

The Alliance to Save Energy was formed by Senators Charles H. Percy (R-Ill.) and Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.) following the energy crisis of the mid-1970s.

It must be a bittersweet moment to be Darrell Hammond.

Every talk Al Gore gives, after all, continues to prove the Saturday Night Live veteran’s brilliance at honing in on the speech patterns of public figures; if Gore can’t tweak his style after years of mockery, then clearly Hammond caught something elemental.

But in his speech in Washington on Thursday, the former Vice President also shattered the central premise of Hammond’s take on Al Gore — that the politician is so terminally dull, so pedantic and long-winded, that the idea of him inspiring followers is a joke. To the contrary: Despite the occasional Droopy Dog cadences of his address, Gore gave one hell of a speech.

His call for America to move to carbon-free electricity completely within 10 years is already being widely analyzed, with pundits everywhere not only weighing the plan’s chances but publicly wondering why the green evangelist won’t address a couple of nagging issues.

But citizens who rely solely on what’s being written about the speech are doing themselves a disservice. This one should be seen.

That’s partly because of the moments in which Gore overcomes his oft-noted rhetorical habits, rejecting rambling explanations in favor of an un-Gorelike directness. In analyzing the ways our economic, security, and environmental concerns are interwoven, for instance, he delivers this tidy gem: “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet.” Gore uttered the line in such a hurry it sounded as if he himself doubted he could make a point so effectively. It earned him enormous applause.

An even larger ovation greeted Gore when he bitingly mocked the notion that the answer to high short-term gas prices was to allow more oil drilling 10 years from now. Of course, others will mock Gore’s own 10-year proposal, calling it so wildly optimistic it borders on science-fiction. Responding in advance to those naysayers, Gore argued that people are right to disbelieve politicians who make promises of change to come 40 years down the road, long after they’ve left office and can’t be held accountable. According to him, “ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.”

Convincingly criticizing “the tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately, without taking the others into account,” and to embrace solutions that “almost always make the other crises worse,” he first underlined the need for a change as broad as eliminating carbon emissions from all electricity generation.

But he went on to argue that such an ambitious goal is “achievable, affordable, and transformative,” using as one illustration the falling price of solar-cell material — comparing it to another silicon-intensive product, computer chips, whose dramatic and sustained price drop is the stuff of legend. Comparing costs between old and new power-producing methods, he noted that “when demand for oil and coal increases, the price goes up; when the demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.”

Arguing for boldness and “generational change,” Gore railed against “the deep dysfunction of our politics,” which have long “tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with small baby steps in the right direction.”

He seemed even to deliver a friendly jab at his more timid environmentalist peers when he boasted of the We campaign, a bipartisan media campaign started by Gore and colleagues’ Alliance for Climate Protection to publicize the need for climate-related changes. Said Gore, “we’re committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws.”

Finally, he returned to a comparison many have made, suggesting that the call for a green-tech revolution should be as intense and goal-oriented as John F. Kennedy’s challenge to put a man on the moon.

As Gore recalled standing a few miles from the launch site in 1969, and watching Neil Armstrong on television a few days later, he turned a now-clichéd reference into a genuinely stirring call to action. If Darrell Hammond felt a tear welling up, he probably wasn’t the only one.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media