Image: Susanne Miller, USFWS

From Green Right Now Reports

An initiative to put an end to international trophy hunting and commercial trade in polar bear parts was defeated in a vote at the United Nations’ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Doha, Qatar. The same group also voted down a proposal to ban the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a fish used extensively in sushi and sashimi.

The proposal to protect the polar bear was sponsored by the United States and supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) among other groups. NRDC lawyers and conservation experts have asserted that the bears suffer unsustainably high harvest levels in the face of trophy hunters and a market for pelts, paws, teeth and other parts.

“While there has been a lot of positive momentum in polar bear conservation recently, this is a real setback,” said Andrew Wetzler, Director of NRDC’s Wildlife Conservation Project. “It keeps some of the most important populations of polar bears squarely in the crosshairs. We will continue work to find a new way to protect polar bears from this unsustainable hunt.”

A 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey offered a “conservative” estimate that the total population of polar bears would decline by over 70 percent in the next 45 years as global warming literally melts their habitat. A year later, the U.S. listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal before CITES sought to “uplist” the species to the more highly protected class 1 status under international treaty. It was defeated by a vote of 62-48 with 11 abstentions.

Image: NOAA

Meanwhile, only the United States, Norway and Kenya offered outright support for the Atlantic bluefin ban, while the European Union asked that any action be delayed until May 2011 to provide more time to respond to claims of overfishing.

Japan, which imports 80 percent of Atlantic bluefin, conceded that stocks were in trouble but echoed a growing theme that CITES should have no role in regulating tuna and other marine species.

Japan expressed willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna but wanted those to come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which currently regulates the trade.

Walmart announced a plan to reduce carbon emissions across its global supply chain today, saying it intends to shave 20 million metric tons off its greenhouse gas emissions   through 2015.

Walmart CEO Mike Duke annoucing carbon reduction goals

The reductions will come from Walmart’s own operations and  from “the life cycle of the products we sell,” said Walmart CEO Mike Duke, adding that the savings would be the equivalent of taking 3.8 million greenhouse gas-emitting cars off the road for a year.

“It’s a very sizable goal, as we often do here at Walmart,” he said.

Calculated another way, the reductions represent 150 percent of Walmart’s anticipated carbon growth over the next five years.

The reductions will be done as Walmart works with suppliers and will come from reduced energy spent on manufacturing and transportation; from products redesigned to consume less raw material or last longer; from the reduction of disposable products and the increased use of recycled goods, Duke said. “All of this is part of the life cycle of products.”

“We will be the leader in retailing because we will be the first to look at the supply chain on a global basis,” he told an audience of partner groups, reporters and suppliers during the webcast announcement from the company’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark..

Duke explained that Walmart sees these carbon reductions as compatible with business growth.

“There are millions more customers around the world who really do want to save money and that Walmart could reach. We do plan and want to continue to build stores. We want to add square footage, that’s the reality of our business. Yet we know we need to get ready for a world in which energy will only be more expensive. And there will be a greater need to operate with less carbon in the supply chain,” Duke said.

He said he expects that the efficiencies found as suppliers reduce their carbon emissions will result in continued lower prices for customers. “Like everything we do around here at Walmart, this commitment ends up coming down to our customers, and helping our customers around the world save money and live better.”

More sustainable business practices also can help shield customers from high energy costs in their own lives, Duke said.

“That is why America needs comprehensive legislative policy that addresses energy, energy security, the country’s competitiveness and reducing pollution.”

Several environmentalists and advisors, including Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, joined Duke and Walmart executives for the announcement.

EDF has set up at office in Bentonville, Ark., near Walmart headquarters.

The retailer also has worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council and World Wildlife Fund to develop its sustainability plan.

Tree Hugger and Planet Green co-sponsored the webcast. TreeHugger founder Graham Hill helped kick off the news conference by remote, with a video lesson on greenhouse gases, which he likened to a blanket that’s getting too thick and threatening to disrupt the climate humans are adapted to. He discussed ways products can be more earth-friendly, alluding to paper towels that can be ripped off in half sheets and proper sizing of food portions.

TreeHugger Editor-in-Chief Meaghan O’Neill talked with an invited panel about how business and sustainability can interact. A FoxHome Entertainment executive showed off a DVD package that has less plastic and Paul Kelly of Walmart-owned Asda in the UK talked about how more sustainable products can be low cost.

“You can decouple business growth from carbon growth,’’ said Asda exec Kelly.

Walmart, once widely derided as a merciless profit-seeker and crusher of small businesses, has in recent years taken a variety of steps, from using fuel-efficient trucks to buying more local food and daylighting its stores, to reduce its carbon footprint. Lately, it has been pushing its suppliers to operate more sustainably, and already gives points to products that come with less packaging and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Critics says that Walmart’s push is more about squeezing out costs than greenhouse gases. But others, including some leading environmentalists, vouch for Walmart’s sincerity and believe its scale gives it an incredible podium.

“Walmart is looking at the big picture,” said Krupp, by leveraging its vast vendor network to achieve change.

During a mock interview with a Walmart executive during the webcast, Krupp said Walmart is showing leadership by acting in advance of government mandates to reduce carbon emissions and also throwing out a challenge to consumer products companies around the world.

“What’s sensational is that you’re (Walmart) going to launch a process, a race, a treasure hunt among your suppliers to find ways to cut carbon pollution and cut their energy costs.”

For more information, see the Walmart Fact Sheet on how it intends to reduce carbon emissions.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Recently the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission decided that climate-related risks are material information that publicly traded companies must disclose to investors. Publicly traded companies now must share information about their exposure to risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. But it will likely be several months before companies catch up with the SEC rule and begin those disclosures.

In the meantime, there is a helpful tool available from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of approximately 300 faith-based institutional investors that represents more than $100 billion in invested capital. The ICCR and Trucost, an independent environmental data company, have for the last year made available Climate Risk Profiles on more than 150 major companies, with a particular focus on companies facing proxy resolutions from religious shareholders.

“Religious shareholders have been on the cutting edge of the pressure for climate-related disclosure. We filed the first climate-related proxy resolutions nearly 20 years ago in 1991,” ICCR Executive Director Laura Berry said in a statement. She said the “SEC action is wonderful news for shareholders who are committed to seeing to it that America’s largest companies put all of their cards on the table when it comes to the risks associated with climate change.”

ICCR and Trucost launched the company profiles in February, 2009. The reports cover more than 150 corporations – from Abbott Laboratories to Yum! Brands – with a focus on the subjects of 2009 shareholder resolutions filed by faith-based investors, public pension funds and other investors. The shareholder resolutions cover a wide range of issues, including climate change, and were filed with companies in all sectors of the economy.

The climate change indicators for the companies were developed using data from Trucost, an independent environmental data company with offices in London, New York, and Boston. The company maintains a database of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as records of hundreds of environmental indicators including water use, waste disposal and pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.

Each of the “climate risk profiles” takes into account whether or not a company discloses the greenhouse gas emissions from its operations and the percentage of the company’s deviation in GHG emissions from the sector average compared to its closest industry peers. For companies that do not disclose GHG emissions, Trucost calculates their emissions based on its research and methodology.

Image: UNFCCC

Fifty-five countries that combine to produce 78 percent of all global greenhouse emissions from energy use have offered pledges to reduce that output by 2020, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The group includes China and the United States.

The national pledges were required under the Copenhagen Accord forged at the climate change talks in Copenhagen in December. Pledges cover the period after the end of 2012 when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol emissions targets expires.

“Greater ambition is required to meet the scale of the challenge,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said. “But I see these pledges as clear signals of willingness to move negotiations towards a successful conclusion.”

None of the countries went beyond the commitments made at or before the Copenhagen summit. The steepest emissions cut was pledged by Norway, which offered to cut greenhouse gases 30 to 40 percent below 1990 levels for the period beyond 2012 as long as major emitting parties agree on emissions reductions in line with the 2°Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) target.

To avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change, most scientists say it will be necessary to keep global temperature rise to 2°Celsius above the pre-industrial temperature, or around 1.2°C (2.16°F) above today’s level. To keep within the 2°C ceiling, those scientists say global emissions of greenhouse gases will have to peak by 2020 at the latest, be cut by at least 50 percent of their 1990 levels by 2050, then continue to decline.

Targets pledged under the Copenhagen Accord fall short of these levels, but cuts would reduce the emissions linked to climate change.

Japan pledged the next steepest cut of 25 percent below 1990 levels, while Russia pledged a 15 to 25 cut depending on accounting of the potential of Russia’s forests to absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

The United States and Canada each pledged a 17 percent cut below 2005 levels.

China pledged to lower its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent by 2020 compared to the 2005 level, increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15 percent by 2020 and increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters by 2020 from the 2005 levels.

Copyright © 2010 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

As governments wrestle with the rules of the game for a greener future, businesses are putting their own playbooks on the table.

Alcoa, a longtime champion of environmental action, helped lead a team of 29 global companies, representing 14 industries, in developing a coordinated plan for how the world’s burgeoning population could live peaceably, comfortably and sustainably on the planet.

The plan, released today and called Vision 2050 lays out what human inhabitants – 9 billion human inhabitants – will need to do to live within their means on Mother Earth.

“The world already has the knowledge, science, technologies, skills and financial resources needed to achieve Vision 2050. However, concerted global action in the next decade will be required to bring these capabilities and resources together, putting the world on the path to sustainability,” said Alcoa Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Dr. Mohammad A. Zaidi co-chaired the 18-month project.

All the companies participating were part of The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), a global association of about 200 companies. The CEO-led group studies the intersection of business and sustainable development. Through the council, the companies share knowledge and best practices.

Vision 2050 spells out the actions and changes that must happen over the coming decade “to make a sustainable planetary society possible,” according to a news release. These include:

• Meeting the development needs of billions of people and enabling their education and economic empowerment, particularly of women.
• Developing radically more eco-efficient solutions, lifestyles and behavior.
• Incorporating the costs of “externalities” — starting with carbon, ecosystem services and water — into the structure of the marketplace. (In other words, putting a price on natural resources, thereby equalizing the playing field for businesses that practice careful use of those resources.)
• Doubling agricultural output without increasing the amount of land or water used
• Halting deforestation and increasing yields from planted forests
• Halving carbon emissions worldwide (based on 2005 levels) by 2050, with greenhouse gas emissions peaking around 2020 through a shift to low-carbon energy systems (i.e., renewable energy like wind and solar power) and highly improved demand-side energy efficiency (energy efficient buildings).
• Providing universal access to low-carbon mobility
• Delivering a four- to ten-fold improvement in the use of resources and materials. (Think recycle, reuse and reduce.)

Vision 2050, an 80-page document, calls out businesses’ role as integral to transforming world markets, but cautions that companies must not harm natural resources or reduce biodiversity. It is a self-described “best-case scenario for sustainability” intended not as a “definitive blueprint” but a launching point for developing strategies and dialogue with governments, the news release explains.

Alcoa has shown its own commitment to sustainability by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by a 43% over its 1990 base year; setting up community programs worldwide and winning recognition for its ethical practices, ranking 11 out of 581 companies on the Covalence Ethics Index.

About 73 percent of the aluminum produced in the world is still in use, Alcoa reports, making the company’s core recyclable product more sustainable than many raw materials.

The company employs nearly 60,000 people around the world.

Who says America can’t take the lead in wind power? Not General Electric. The global corporation based in Schenectady, N.Y., announced today that it has signed contracts to supply 88 wind turbines to HECIC New Energy Co., Ltd., a leading wind energy developer in China.

The turbines are destined for three new projects in the Hebei and Shanxi Provinces in China, which is the world’s 4th largest producer of wind power (after Germany, the U.S. and Spain).

The American Wind Energy Association has predicted that China’s wind power capacity will soon overtake European nations that have built strong wind components into their energy infrastructure. This surge in Chinese wind power will help reduce the nation’s reliance on coal-fired electricity plants and also bolster sales of wind components from around the world. In addition to the United States, Japan and European nations are positioned to help supply China’s needs, according to the AWEA.

China plans to add 150 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity by 2020, which will require it to add about 11.5 gigawatts of installed wind power every year, GE reported.

U.S. based GE, a global leader in power generation technologies, has already committed to supplying China with 896 1.5 MW wind turbines.

The GE 1.5 Megawatt Turbine was the most commonly installed land wind tower in the U.S. in 2009, according to the AWEA. It is capable of powering some 400 “average” American homes.

GE reports that more than 12,000 of these machines have been installed for projects around the world.

The company also noted that it is well-positioned to serve China’s growing wind industry, having been in business in that country for more than a century. GE runs 36 wholly owned or joint venture companies in China that include manufacturing, service, research and development and financial services operations, with a total workforce of over 13,000.

“The development of wind power is a key economic growth area for China and plays a critical role in achieving our national target to increase to 150 gigawatts of installed wind energy capacity by 2020,” said Dr. Cao Xin, General Manager of HECIC New Energy Co., Ltd., in the news release. “As a corporate citizen of China, our strategy is to apply the most advanced and reliable technology and technological expertise for every project that will help China reach its goal of achieving clean energy.”

To read more about wind power, see this fact sheet, called Wind Basics, put out by the AWEA in 2009.

The clock has just struck midnight on New Year’s Eve, 2020, and your rooftop cocktail party is in full swing. An urban garden, with potted evergreens and fruit trees, carpets the top of your downtown apartment building. The structure itself is vintage – a 1960’s brownstone that’s been retrofitted, by city-wide mandate. It operates on the new multi-source national electrical grid, which is supplied by wind, solar, geothermal power, as well as fossil fuels whose emissions are trapped underground.

Rooftop Garden (Photo: Adpower99/Dreamstime.)

In your apartment, appliances and plumbing fixtures are energy- and water-efficient – something you were able to afford with the help of government incentives that started in 2010.

As the New Year turns, friends sip mojitos with mint freshly cut from your herb garden, nibbling locally made goat cheese, accented by your own roof-grown tomatoes and cukes. A rainwater-collection system irrigates your vegetable garden, and the rooftop’s community compost fertilizes it. Solar-heated water percolates through your plumbing, and a mobile rooftop solar system heats and cools your home. Several stories below, in the building’s underground parking lot, the family car is getting its nightly re-charge.

It’s a smart, self-contained life, one that consumes no more than it requires, and produces some of its own food and energy on-site. And believe it or not, you are paying less for utilities, transportation – for life, in general – than you did a decade ago. That’s because U.S. policy-makers and legislators pushed so hard ten years before to put the country on an aggressive path toward a sustainable, renewable-energy future.

Imagine if they hadn’t pushed through the Energy and Power Bill in 2010, or the emissions Cap and Trade plan or later, the Carbon Tax bill… Imagine if progressive, quickly instituted policies and incentives hadn’t reassured manufacturers and factory owners that it was a good idea to retool and hire and train all those “green-economy” workers. …

This is the future we could see, the best case scenario we might see, if the White House and U.S. Congress and the rest of us act aggressively – now – to grow a green economy and reduce carbon emissions.

Is it Possible?

Most conservative think-tanks and government agencies foresee a longer-term conversion to green energy. According to one DOE report, the fastest we could move would be to attain 20 percent wind by 2030, while still relying on fossil fuels for up to 78 percent of  our overall power as late as 2035.

There are quicker conversion scenarios offered by groups ranging from the Union of Concerned Scientists to the American Wind Energy Association , from the Worldwatch Institute and the Renewable Energy and a Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) to former Vice President Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection/Repower America plan.

The latter suggests the U.S. could be at 100 percent renewable in 10 years,  but that roadmap doesn’t give a breakdown on which types of energy would provide what percentage of our overall electricity needs.And Gore’s and similar plans have been criticized as requiring the economy to travel at a warp speed not possible on this planet. They’ve also been challenged as risky, because they’d be based totally on today’s technologies, when solar and geothermal and biofuels are rapidly improving and coming down in price. Of course this could help us get there more quickly, but it also warns against locking in commitments.

In fact, if there’s one thing all parties agree upon, it’s that there is no single, truly reliable breakdown for a ten-year scenario that predicts specifics for how the energy pie would be divided in 10 years; 20 percent solar? 30 percent wind? 40 percent conventional fossil fuels like natural gas? Where does nuclear power fit?
No one has a crystal ball.

According to Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University civil engineering professor and co-author of a recent report in Scientific American – “Evaluating the Feasibility of a Large Scale Wind, Water and Sun Energy Infrastructure” - in theory, the United States shouldn’t have a problem converting all “new production of electricity to renewable by 2020. The issue is, what’s ‘new’? It’s not going to be a high percent of the total. Each year you can replace a certain percent, but a (pre-existing) power plant can last 40 years.”

However, Jacobson adds,  ”It’s certainly feasible in ten years - if everybody put their minds to it – to say  all new power has to be renewable. We could be at 50 percent wind, 40 percent solar and 10 percent everything else, including geothermal, hydro-electric, even some tidal wave power.”

But converting our total energy production to renewables in 10 years is not a likely scenario, he says, because that would require the U.S. government to “take away all the subsidies from fossil fuels and shift them over to renewables” – unlikely, even with a progressive President and Congress.

“These coal plants that are grandfathered in, the way to make those go out of business is to change the subsidies, change the laws, but we’ll have a battle! Getting rid of the old stuff is easier said than done. We have all these people working in the industry and they are going to complain that we’re costing the country jobs, putting their companies out of business. And we’d need a job training program to shift them into other industries.”

But is it technically possible to have all new energy be renewable by 2020?

Yes,  says the professor, adding that we might already be at 25 percent renewable for new power now.

“Right now, wind is the second largest source of all new energy, after natural gas, and if we slowly get rid of the ‘old’ power, how fast that could occur depends on”  introducing things like new laws and incentives, aggressive policies that don’t change with each election, as well as shifting subsidies to green power interests and ridding the powers-that-be of outmoded mindsets.

Jacobson concludes:  ”The scenario of 100 percent conversion to renewables in 10 years is very slim. A 90 percent conversion – maybe a little less slim. … That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. All forces should be aligned to do these things. But given there are so many confliciting interests – there are lobbyists, naysayers, competing financial interests, the economic cycles, the political cycles – so many potential roadblocks. … You can’t just shut down the existing plants and have new generation on-line in 10 years. You could imagine the law suits. The goal is there, but if you think about it as retiring existing things as they go down, there’s probably less of a fight on that front.”

And, as the civil engineer points out, ” electric power is not the only thing you’re trying to change. You’re trying to change the entire infrastructure, so you want to go down the path of least resistance. It’s better to get 25 percent across the board – for everything, for other sectors, and not just (go for) 100 percent for electric power. Those other sectors include industrial, transportation, energy efficiency” for our built-environment.

As for which type of renewable energy will create the largest chunk of power in America, no one can say. So let’s take a look at the three main ones  consistently mentioned by renewable-energy proponents. First up, wind power.

While environmental activists raise banners and bullhorns demanding action on climate change, the movement to quell climate change has quieter advocates in all corners of society.

Some of these advocates have big names Americans will surely recognize: Addidas, Coca-Cola Company, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Chevron Ltd., Alcoa Alumnio, Ericsson, Nike Inc., General Electric, Levi Strauss, KPMG International, Gap Inc., Fairmont Hotels and Resorts, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, Starbucks and Yahoo! Inc..

These are not companies that one normally associates with strong environmentalism, and some have carbon footprints that scare the bejesus out of environmental groups. (Though a closer look would reveal that many also have significant green initiatives underway. Fairmont has built green hotels. General Electric is invested in green energy.)

What these companies have in common, though, is a signed commitment asking for progress on climate change. They are signers of the Copenhagen Communique, a message to global political leaders from some of the world’s largest businesses, and some smaller ones.

They share a common belief that inaction on global warming is not the answer; that climate change is real and stands to hurt everyone and must be addressed with strong laws and steep carbon emissions reductions.

“Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilized,” they say in the communique, released last week and available for full viewing at the website, Copenhagen Communique.

“It is critical that we exit this recession in a way that lays the foundation for low-carbon growth and avoids locking us into a high-carbon future,” says the communique, which aims to push for an “ambitious, robust and effective” agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Conference opening today (Dec. 7-18).

An initiative of the Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leader’s Group on Climate Change, the communique has more than 700 signers and articulates a strategy to address climate change that shares much, both in tone and substance, with environmentalists.

The communiqué outlines a “basic shape” that a Copenhagen agreement should take:

• It must establish a global emissions cap and long-term reduction “pathway” for all greenhouse gas emissions and sources of GHGs for the period 2013 to 2050. The targets should be based on science to “ensure global greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized below critical thresholds.”

• Emissions should “peak and begin to decline rapidly within the next decade to keep the Earth’s global average temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius. (Many environmentalists, however, now say a decade is too long a time frame.)

• Emissions must be reduced by 50-85 percent by 2050 (based on what baseline is unclear) in keeping with the latest International Panel on Climate Change report. (Some environmentalists are calling for steeper cuts, sooner in light of recent science reports that the IPCC 2007 report underestimated the rate of climate change.)

• A “mechanism” for the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (commonly known as REDD) to stop deforestation. This would accomplished by funding tropical forest nations to halt deforestation and develop alternative economic paths.

The report notes that “there is nothing to be gained by delay” on climate change, which only raises the cost of the required emissions reductions.

It also says that developed nations need to take on “immediate and deep emissions reduction commitments that are much higher than the global average,” another area of agreement in principal with many others urging action to stem climate change.

Developing countries will need to have their own emission reduction plans in line with their “differentiated responsibilities” and the least developed economies will need “additional assistance” with this, the report notes.

All nations must enact policies to encourage  low-carbon technologies and improve markets for low-carbon goods and services because a carbon market, or “strong carbon price” alone, won’t be sufficient, according to the communique.

The communiqué ends on a high note, characterizing the problem of climate change as “solvable” and the costs of doing so as “manageable.” Many technologies are available to help and the policies are clear.

But it warns a second time: “Delay is not an option.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Annie Leonard is back at it. The creator of the witty Story of Stuff, which broke through the fog of denial on how we are consuming our planet by over consuming stuff, has taken on cap and trade, the market-based plan that supporters say will save the planet but that others (like Leonard) believe will miss the mark, with tragic consequences.

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

Leonard’s The Story of Cap and Trade is a capsule examination of the failings of cap and trade plans — as practiced previously in other countries and as proposed in the U.S.  She and other like-minded critics, scientists and environmentalists, see cap and trade as a climate solution riddled with pitfalls; a flawed proposal that could delay real progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Those who support cap and trade would disagree with her analysis. They say cap and trade offers a foothold on the problem, a way dial back greenhouse gases that is palatable to those in power. They argue that cap and trade, as opposed to say a direct carbon or pollution tax, can at least pass the U.S. Congress and other legislative bodies. This market-based solution, the argument goes, helps put a price on pollution to gradually pull down carbon emissions.

Leonard, though, isn’t buying it, and her argument is worth listening to.

The world is running out of oil faster than the “official” report from the International Energy Agency suggests, according to an exclusive news report in the UK’s Guardian.

Whistleblowers, one inside the agency and one who has left the agency, say that the IEA has been downplaying the coming shortage of oil for fear of triggering a panic.

Further, the whistleblower still employed by the IEA (described as a “senior official” who wished to remain anonymous), says that the agency’s reluctance to come clean about oil supplies has been the result of pressure from the United States.

These allegations raise questions about the IEA’s prediction that oil production could be raised from its current level of 83 million barrels a day to 105 million barrels a day to meet increasing demand expected as the world comes out of the recession.

Looked at another way, the leaks from inside the IEA, which released its 2009 World Energy Outlook this week, give credence to critics who have been saying the world is close to or past the point of “peak” oil production.

The Guardian quoted the insider source as saying:

“Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources,” he added.

Said the Guardians’ second source:

“We have [already] entered the ‘peak oil’ zone. I think that the situation is really bad.”

The IEA report is not stripped of bad news, however. A look at the Executive Summary shows the IEA projects that:

• Oil demand will grow from 85 million barrels a day in 2008 to 105 million barrels per day in 2030 with the transportation sector accounting for 97 percent of the increase in oil use.
• Falling investment in oil and gas energy will have “far-reaching and depending on how governments respond, potentially serious consequences for energy security, climate change and energy poverty. …Any prolonged downturn in investment threatens to constrain capacity growth in the medium term, particularly for long lead-time projects, eventually risking a shortfall in supply.”

The IEA report further warns that it is important that world leaders develop a treaty at Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (though it talks in terms of holding the planet to 450 ppm of carbon in the atmosphere  instead of the emerging consensus for 350 ppm).

“Energy needs to be used more efficiently and the carbon content of the energy we consume must be reduced…” yet in 2030, the report predicts, fossil fuels, with the exception of coal, will remain the dominant energy sources.

For a larger discussion on peak oil, a look at the bell curves and some postulations about life on planet Earth in the post-fossil fuel era see Matt Savinar’s blog Life After the Oil Crash.

Before the recession put a stranglehold on most every investment, clean technology was hot. Nearly 80 percent of all the venture capital spent in 2008 went to clean, green investments. The industries slumped for much of 2009, but now investors are returning to clean industries.

Regular Americans are curious about these clean tech companies, too, and they’re asking their financial advisers about them, according to one survey.

What is clean tech? It refers to technologies made without generating significant pollution, which produce products that can replace non-renewable energy sources, like oil, and make us more energy-efficient. Think solar cells and wind-generated power, hybrid or electric cars, green buildings, desalinated water and a “smart grid” that will help businesses and home owners to connect with new sources of power, like wind farms and giant desert photovoltaic installations

To give it an extra push, the government’s stimulus package has set aside about  $100 billion for clean, green products and industries. With that boost, venture capital is starting to flow again.

Considering clean-tech investing? We asked some of the best minds in the business to offer tips, advice and bits of wisdom:

Dallas Kachan Cleantech Group

What parts of clean tech are rebounding?

“The earliest sectors to rebound are tied to energy-efficiency and smart grids. The technologies are well understood and simple, quick and easy to deploy. Energy efficiency technologies are the low-hanging fruit,” said Dallas Kachan, managing director of Cleantech Group.  “By becoming more efficient we negate the need for more (energy) generation. . . there is a broad realization that over the last year you get high returns to pursue energy efficiency.”

Kachan’s company is among the most widely read sources of trade news, daily business and developments in the clean technology arena.

So far, solar deals and biofuels have gotten the lion’s share of clean tech investments. Some predict now that energy-efficient technologies will be the next hot commodities.

Are these industries solid?

“These technologies are ready for prime time. They weren’t ready 30 years ago. The timing wasn’t right in the ‘70s. They are no longer considered “alternative” technologies,” said Ron Pernick, co-founder of Clean Edge, a major market research and publishing firm focused on clean technologies since 2000. Clean Edge guides companies, investors and even governments with information about “trends, opportunities and challenges.”

“Globally, biofuels, wind and solar were a $116 billion industry last year,” Pernick said. The predictions for those three sectors? “They will be more than $300 billion in a decade.”

Now, big businesses are stepping into the clean-tech arena, Pernick said. Reports say that General Electric has sunk billions of dollars into wind power, and Applied Materials has put money into solar power.  Xerox, Kimberly-Clark and Walmart  are all putting substantial money into clean tech.

How quickly will these clean tech businesses grow?

Michael Kanellos Greentech Media

“Don’t expect a quick payoff,” said Michael Kanellos, editor-in-chief of Greentech Media, a leading online-media company. He suggested lowering your sky-high expectations. “Software companies can take off like a rocket because consumers can download applications for free and good ones travel by word of mouth. Twitter went from a few users to millions.

“But most green-tech applications – like energy-efficient appliances or solar panels – have to be manufactured. That costs money, which slows adoption,” he said.

In other words, “If Google had to go on your roof, install a bunch of glass plates and charge you $20,000 before you even started searching, you’d switch to Yahoo,” Kanellos said.

What about green mutual funds?

There may be safety in numbers, and clean/green mutual funds could provide extra comfort for mom-and-pop investors. Morningstar provides its members with research and analysis of the market, including tracking of 23 actively managed (and 15 exchange-traded) funds that are considered “green.”

“Somebody who wants to invest in green mutual funds should be aware of the various types of funds out there that are marketed as ‘green,’ said David Kathman, a Chicago-based analyst of mutual funds for Morningstar. A fund that consists of many start-ups is a riskier bet than one with a broader mix.

“Another group is ‘best of breed’ green funds, he said. “These look much more like regular core mutual funds in that they typically own well-known stocks, but within each sector they look for stocks with the best green profiles and environmental records,” Kathman said.

If you’re thinking about a mutual fund, study the prospectus for their “green” criteria or sustainability goals and the areas of green industry where they focus.

Like any other investment, looking for solid cash flows, stimulus money and diversified portfolios are important. A solid track record is as important with “clean” mutual funds as it is with any other fund.

Don’t just think American. Think globally

“Clean tech is not just an American phenomenon. There are very important deals and commercialization in . . . China and the Middle East,” said Clean Tech’s Kachan.

The clean-tech field also is making strong headway in South Korea, Japan, the European Union and India. “Governments around the world . . . are looking to create jobs, be energy-independent, meet stringent requirements for carbon and other emissions, said Clean Edge’s Pernick. “Governments are taking this seriously.”

In the third quarter of this year, Europe received much more clean-tech financing than America.

China is the world’s third largest economy, and they are aggressively looking for cleaner, more efficient energy. One report points out that China has doubled its ability to use wind-generated power over the past four years.

Opponents of climate change action say we can’t afford to spend the billions it will take to retool our economy around new energy sources.

But a group of economists says we can’t afford not to.

The network of  economists, called Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3), says that lowering carbon emissions to 350 parts per million (from the current 400 parts per million) is not just desirable — it is affordable.

“The warnings about climate change are growing steadily more ominous — but it has not, as a consequence, become impossibly expensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable future,” they note in a new report The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization.

Economic activity aimed at reaching the 350 ppm benchmark, would sustain the economy by creating clean energy jobs, fostering innovation and protecting businesses and individuals from the damaging effects of a hotter climate, according to the  report.

The October paper, co-authored by economics researchers across the US, echoes a point made by environmentalists for years, that shifting to new methods now will avert greater costs later.

The E3 economists see it this way:

• It might cost 1 to 3 percent of the world gross domestic product to reach 350 ppm – considered to be a healthy and safe level of carbon dioxide — but the cost of failing to stabilize the earth’s climate over the next 200 years would be much higher.

• Even if the cost to correct the atmosphere fell at the higher end, at 2.5 of GDP, the net effect to household incomes would be barely noticeable.  “Average incomes would take 29 years to double from today’s level, compared to 28 years in the absence of climate costs.”

Efforts to protect the earth, such as reforestation, replacing fossil fuels with clean energy and developing carbon sequestration, would be an insurance policy against drastic and costly climate changes, they say.

“The reason people buy fire insurance is not because they are certain that their house will burn down; rather, it is because they cannot be certain that it won’t,” said Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University and Stockholm Environment Institute, the lead author of the report, in a statement.

“A carbon target of 350 parts per million buys us insurance against catastrophic climate change.”

The E3 report further argues that half-way measures would not be helpful, because failing to firmly reset the economy on a lower carbon path would lead to higher costs:

“We cannot afford a little climate policy, half-measures that would leave us all vulnerable to the immense risks of an increasingly destructive climate. We need a big initiative, a comprehensive global deal on protecting the earth’s climate by rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Because the status quo is not sustainable, the most economical choice is to change, as quickly, cost-effectively, and comprehensively as possible.”

The E3 network was formed to help organize information about new economic models that take into account human health and the environment. The network of about 200 economics academics reports that it was formed “to combat misleading junk economics popularized by climate skeptics.”

The report was assembled by Dr. Ackerman and seven other economists from Tufts, the University of California at Santa Barbara, UC at Berkeley, Bard College Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins. (However, the economists’ views do not necessarily represent those of their university.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media