LED Lights Are Here

Finally, LED lights are becoming affordable - and more and more common.  We bought our first LED bulbs a couple months ago at Home Depot.  Out of curiosity, I had stopped in to see if they were carrying them yet.  I didn't see any and asked the first HD employee I saw.

"Sold out," he said, "should get more in Friday."

I looked at the one empty slot on the shelves - amidst hundreds of options for different bulbs of all types, shapes and sizes.  "That's a good sign," I thought to myself.

I went back the next weekend and picked up a few bulbs that fit these weird candelabra fixtures we have in our new rental.  They're not super cheap - about $14 for a pack of two.  But they use about 90% less energy than the old incandescent bulbs, so they'll pay for themselves over time.  And when I see the coal plant burning less than a mile from our house, and know that we just took demand down a notch, that's priceless.

Prop 23 & Green Jobs

A friend sent me a recent Opinion piece from the Wall St. Journal titled "Prop 23 and the Green Jobs Myth" by T.J. Rodgers - founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, which acquired SunPower Corp - one of our country's largest solar companies - in 2003.

Image source: Solar Richmond, www.solarrichmond.net

In the piece, Rodgers supports the fossil-fuel industry-backed Prop 23 by essentially trying to tie it to California's economic troubles, and claiming it will hurt job growth.  I can appreciate the position that putting a direct price on pollution can look like an added cost, but I hold that it's correcting a market distortion - we are and will continue to pay the costs of extracting and burning fossil fuels whether we do so directly (by pricing carbon) or indirectly (through healthcare, destruction of personal property & infrastructure, loss of life, undermining ecosystem services, etc.).  

Image source: The 6th Extinction

Attempts to tie a direct line from AB 32 (California's climate change legislation) to the state's current economic woes are disingenuous. First, the law hasn't gone into effect yet.  Second, the initial targets of AB 32 are so easy to meet, that the costs will be more than offset by cost savings from efficiency upgrades and better processes.  I know Econ 101 tells us that business would already have realized all of those cost-savings if the potential was there, but businesses are run by people, and as we know people aren't always perfect - the vast majority of businesses have huge unrealized opportunities for cost-savings with little or no upfront investment.

For example, EDF's Climate Corps program hires MBA students to help big companies identify efficiency opportunities - this year 50 interns generated $350 million in savings for these companies. Starting to send the price signal to the correct source - which AB 32 will do, and which Prop 23 is trying to stop - will accelerate these efforts and further innovations to make our economy more efficient, more effective, and more competitive. 

At Cisco Systems, fellow Emily Reyna developed a plan
for installing energy-saving devices in R&D labs that
could save an estimated $8 million per year (with an
18-month payback) and reduce Cisco’s greenhouse
gas emissions by 3%. Source: EDF

I also disagree with the suggestion that the green jobs that AB 32 (and other policies like it) will promote, are a false promise.  I do think most reports on both sides of this topic require a lot of assumptions and aren't perfect.  Still, here's one that finds that policies that incentivize more efficient energy use -- it looks at the case of California, where energy efficiency policies from 1977-2007 created 1.5 million jobs while eliminating fewer than 25,000: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/business/20green.html.  An overview of some other studies that show the expected job growth impacts of AB 32 is available in this Climate Progress post. 

In his piece, Rodgers talks about how SunPower moved manufacturing offshore because of the "high cost and red tape" of manufacturing in the US.  This opens up another whole conversation, but I think this rationale eludes the basic point -- labor's inexpensive in places like the Philippines and Malaysia (where their plants are) because wages and the general standard of living is very low.  That's obviously not what we want for California and Californian workers. More to the point, the piece only talks about the jobs manufacturing solar panels -- the real appeal of green jobs is that most of them can't be outsourced - the jobs installing and maintaining the solar panels (as well as financing the solar panels, weatherizing houses, lighting retrofits, installing green roofs, farming local foods, etc. etc.) 

SunPower's Malaysian fab plant.
Image source: EngineerLive

The piece also claims European subsidies that have helped support the market for renewable energy there have had a net-negative impact on jobs. Here is a White Paper from the National Renewable Energy Lab refuting the study cited to support this claim.  Much of the growth in the solar market (and presumably SunPower's revenue) over the past 5 years can be attributed to these policy structures of the major solar markets in Germany and Spain.  In 2003, when Cypress acquired SunPower it was losing money - outsourcing jobs likely had some impact in turning that around, but I'd wager a much stronger driver was the solar market exploding over that time -- due in no small part to these policies and Europe's cap & trade system, as well as the awareness building that hundreds of groups have done on the true costs and impacts of fossil fuels.

Of course, it's surprising to read a piece supporting Prop 23 authored by the Chair of solar company, as it's so clearly bad for the company's growth.  It reminds me of Tony Hayward who said when he took over BP: "We had too many people trying to save the world" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/bp-ceo-hayward-we-had-too_b_585610.html) -- he promptly went to work trying to turn that around, getting super-efficient in a traditional, linear sense, and cutting corners to disastrous effect. 

Here are a few of yesterday's headlines from Point Carbon, that covers the full-fledged carbon market that has been in effect in Europe for 5 years.  The second one makes a very flexible system even more flexible -- the companies impacted by this will likely make a lot more money than they currently are as a result.  The third one removes any legitimacy of trying to tag cap and trade as a "tax".  

• Market praises California's cap-and-trade design Published: 29 Oct 2010 California's cap-and-trade system will spur investment in clean energy, market sources said.
• California boosts offset limit in cap-and-trade system Published: 29 Oct 2010California emitters can use offsets to meet 8 per cent of their compliance obligation.
• California to give away majority of allowances Published: 29 Oct 2010California will hand out most of its allowances at the start of its cap-and-trade programme.

Here's another good take on Proposition 23 from Thomas Friedman: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

I respect Mr. Rodger's leadership of SunPower Corp, and hope he will come around and see how policies like AB 32 (or anything that puts a price on carbon) will help his company, and create jobs and improve efficiency and competitiveness.

Finally, the piece states: "While our state government frets over issues like... the habitat of the red-legged frog, our economy—the habitat of homo sapiens—is a disaster."  This brings up the most essential point. We need to really internalize the reality that the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the biosphere.  The red-legged frog's habitat and our habitat are one and the same.  Without policies like AB 32 we will degrade that habitat to the point where it won't be able to support our civilization - and at that point it won't matter how many jobs we were or weren't able to create in the short-term.  Luckily, these policies will create jobs and create a whole new economy that is sustainable for the long term.

Californians, please vote "no" on Prop 23 on Tuesday.

Stay going. 

Peru's Sustainable Future

I am in Lima, Peru to participate in an exciting seminar this week.  As is the case in most countries around the world, Peru’s energy ministries are working to take control of their energy future.  With the geopolitical issues, volatile prices, supply constraints, security threats, and imminent threat of climate disruption, we need to make fossil fuels yesterday’s energy source.  And quickly.


How to do so is of course another question – particularly when there is a need for continued economic growth and increased standards of living.  (‘developed’ countries like the US don't need to keep growing the amount of physical through-puts in our economy to improve our quality of life, in fact I think the opposite is true, but there’s still room for such growth in Peru with 20% of the country without access to electricity and 36% living in poverty). 

The folks I’ve met with so far at the Ministerio de Energia y Minas have some great ideas.  They’ve got a vision of moving from an energy mix of 47% crude, 28% renewables (mostly hydro), 21% natural gas, and 4% coal to about one-third each of crude, renewables, and natural gas.  Unlike the US, where we have a lot of low-cost (though very expensive from a systems-view) coal, Peru is looking at greater supply constraints (though they do have some proven reserves of oil and natural gas).

They’ve got some significant solar and wind projects in the works, they are mapping out other possible sources like geothermal, and are really looking for ways to manage the demand side.  They’ve done a lot of public outreach and awareness building and developed many guidelines and informational resources for facilities people in various sectors.

Early last year, a couple of representatives reached out to us at Second Nature with an interest in engaging their higher education sector in this work, recognizing that without these institutions providing tomorrow’s leaders with a comprehensive sustainability perspective, the chances for significant change were very limited.  They attended the 3rd Annual Climate Leadership Summit of the ACUPCC last August in Chicago and heard from college & university presidents, the USGBC, Janine Benyus, Peter Senge, and Bill Clinton about the importance of demand-side reduction, energy efficiency, and new ways of thinking, educating and innovating.  There was also a lot of talk about how to finally bring the ACUPCC concept international.  We had a panel of representatives from the UK, Taiwan, and Malaysia who had already been working on that in various capacities, and a general feeling that it was vitally important to do so.

The Peruvian delegation continued to work on the idea and arranged this meeting for university representatives,  government officials, and others to explore the idea further, and learn about the benefits, opportunities, and strategies for carrying it out.  I’m presenting tomorrow on the current status of the ACUPCC and then again on some of the specific resources available to support the network – like the ACUPCC Reporting System, the Clean Air – Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator, the CAP wiki, and ACUPCC guidance documents on leading change, the academic components of climate action planning, carbon offsets, and financing sustainability projects. 

I just met with Director General of Electricity and various other leaders in the Ministry of Energy and Minining, all of whom seemed to be great people, genuinely excited about the prospect of creating a sustainable energy future for Peru, and who saw the importance of higher education’s role in doing so.  This represents a huge leadership opportunity for the country that will be instrumental in building a secure, efficient, prosperous Peru. 


Although, I gotta say the coolest part about the Ministry was the Alpacas “mowing” the lawn under the trees out front – great way to save fuel & fertilizer!!


Stay going.

One Wish

Bill Gates gave a TED Talk last week about how if he could have just one wish it would be to get to zero carbon. Even with all of his understanding, passion and work on the issues of health, poverty, sanitation, disease and so many of the world's urgent and interrelated problems - his wish, if he only had one, would be to get the big innovation breakthroughs that will make clean, carbon neutral energy affordable and safe. This is because climate disruption is the problem we face today that will make all of the other problems so much worse.

It is incredibly exciting to see the country's colleges and universities leading the way on this push to zero. With 667 institutions committed to publicly reporting on their progress through the ACUPCC, and many more taking very similar steps, they are driving the innovation needed, educating the leaders who can make the breakthroughs, and serving as role-models to show that we can do this in ways that make good business sense.

In the talk, Gates lays out a simple equation: CO2 = P * S * E * C

Where P = population; S = services per person; E = energy per service; and C = carbon dioxide per energy. He points out P is going up to 9 billion, maybe a bit smaller with big efforts in vaccines, education and reproductive health. S is going up, and for most of the world's population, where meeting the basic need of subsistence is a challenge, that's a great thing (in the developed world we have plenty of opportunity to bring that down while improving quality of life). Energy per service is going down, another good thing (although I personally believe it can go down a lot further than he suggests, if we improve the design of just about everything we do). Regardless, the only one that we can really go to zero is carbon per energy (of course the closer E gets to zero, the less zero-carbon energy we'll need).

He also identifies four necessary steps in getting to zero:

1. Basic Research Funding
2. Market Incentives to Reduce CO2 (i.e. price on carbon)
3. Entrepreneurial Opportunity
4. Rational Regulatory Framework

We all have a critical role to play in ensuring that all four of these steps are taken in a timely fashion.

Stay going.

The Natural Edge Project - huge emissions cuts, positive economic impact

My partner sent out the list (below) of reports demonstrating how we can achieve huge cuts in GHG emissions while not only avoiding costs, but driving economic prosperity in preparation for a roundtable discussion this afternoon with Michael Smith of The Natural Edge Project, an Australian think-tank that does an excellent job showing the benefits of whole-system thinking and design in pursuing sustainability. I couldn't help by share it:

Studies demonstrating that OECD Nations Can Achieve 60-80 per cent Emission Cuts Whilst Boosting the Economy and Jobs.

Hanemann, W., Farrell, A. et al (2006) Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California. The California Climate Change Center at UC Berkeley at http://calclimate.berkeley.edu/research/ghg/assets/Cover_and_Executive_Summary.pdf

Interlaboratory Working Group (2000) Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, CO. Available at www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/29379.pdf.

Torrie, R., Parfett, R. and Steenhof, P. (2002) Kyoto and Beyond: the low emission path to innovation and efficiency, Report for David Suzuki Foundation and Canadian Climate Action Network, Canada. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/Kyoto_72.pdf

Lovins, A., Datta, K., Feiler, T., Rábago, K., Swisher, J., Lehmann, A. and Wicker, K. (2002) Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size, Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado. www.smallisprofitable.org

Turton, H., Ma, J., Saddler, H. and Hamilton, C. (2002) Long-Term Greenhouse Gas Scenarios: a pilot study of how Australia can achieve deep cuts in emissions, Australia Institute Paper No 48, http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP48.pdf

Mintzer, I., Leonard, J.A. and Schwartz, P. (2003) US Energy Scenarios for the 21st Century, Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Department of Trade and Industry (2003) Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy, Energy White Paper, UK Department of Trade and Industry, Version 11. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/energy-policy/energy-white-paper/page21223.html

Bailie, A., Bernow, S., Castelli, B., O’Connor, P. and Romm, J. (2003) The Path to Carbon Dioxide-Free Power: Switching to Clean Energy in the Utility Sector, Tellus Institute and Center for Energy and Climate Solutions for the World Wildlife Fund, USA. http://www.foe.org.au/climate-justice/learning-resources/solutions-to-climate-chnage/clean-energy/

Jochem, E (eds) (2004) Steps Towards A Sustainable Development: A White Book of R&D for Energy Efficient Technologies. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) http://www.isi.fhg.de/e/publikation/pdf/white_book_energy-efficient_technologies.pdf

Saddler, H., Diesendorf, M. and Denniss, R. (2004) A Clean Energy Future for Australia Energy Strategies, WWF, Canberra. http://wwf.org.au/ourwork/climatechange/cleanenergyfuture/

Lovins, A.B., Datta, E.K., Bustnes, O.E., Koomey, J.G. and Glasgow, N.J. (2004) Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs and Security, Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado. http://www.oilendgame.com/

National Institute for Environmental Studies (2005) Japan: Low Carbon Society Scenarios toward 2050, National Institute for Environmental Studies. Japan. http://2050.nies.go.jp/

Stern, N. (2006) The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Makhijani, A. (2007) Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/

Smith, M. and Hargroves, K. (2007) ‘Analysis of the Costs of Inaction versus the Costs of Action on Climate Change for Australia’, a submission by TNEP to the Garnaut Review, The Natural Edge Project, Australia. www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/TNEPSubmission.pdf

Diesendorf, M. (2007) Paths to a Low Carbon Future Reducing Australia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 30 percent by 2020, Sustainability Centre. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/paths-to-a-low-carbon-future.pdf

Hatfield Dodds, S., Jackson, E.K., Adams, P.D. and Gerardi, W. (2007) Leader, follower or free rider? The economic impacts of different Australian emission targets by 2050, The Climate Institute, Sydney, Australia. http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/images/stories/CI058_ER_FullReport_NEW.PDF

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

National Institute for Environmental Studies (2007) Japan Scenarios towards a Low Carbon Society – Feasibility study for 70% CO2 emission reduction by 2050 below 1990 level, National Institute for Environmental Studies. Japan. http://2050.nies.go.jp/

Smith, M., Hargroves, K., Stasinopoulos, P., Stephens, R., Desha, C. and Hargroves, S. (2007) Energy Transformed: Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation, The Natural Edge Project, Griffith University, and CSIRO, Australia. http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Sustainable_Energy_Solutions_Portfolio.aspx

Department of Trade and Industry (2007) Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy, Department of Trade and Industry, UK. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39387.pdf

Institute of Public Policy Research, WWF and RSPB (2007) 80 per cent challenge: Delivering a Low Carbon Britain. Institute of Public Policy Research, WWF and RSPB. UK. http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2922

Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation (2008) Deep Reductions, Strong Growth: An economic analysis showing that Canada can prosper economically while doing its share to prevent dangerous climate change. Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews12040801.asp

Von Weizsäcker, E., Hargroves, K., Smith, M., Desha, C. and Stasinopoulos, P. (2009) Factor 5: Transforming the Global Economy through 80% Improvements in Resource Productivity, Earthscan, London. (Pre publication Hardcopy bound copy given to LBNLs)

Stay going.

.