“Can we solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations?”

Though we often envision debates as pitting two opponents against each other, hopefully in an intense battle of wit and wordsmithing, this one was not so. Both sides found themselves agreeing with each other more often than not, and parried with points on implementation.

Read more of this story »

“Can we solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations?”

This is the defining question of our time.

New innovations, improvements, or breakthroughs are happening all the time in clean tech, especially among renewable energy technologies. Yet technological limitations still plague the various industries. These hurdles include energy storage, energy efficiency, transmission infrastructure and technology, hydrogen power, CO2 capture and sequestration, and producing bio-fuels at an industrial scale. Economics is also a potent issue that both hampers and launches these technologies, hence the host of this debate.

Read more of this story »

Special thanks to Jeff Strasburg for helping us indulge our imaginations in this series!  I’d also like to extend my gratitude to Justin for engaging me in this form.  It has been edifying to explore concepts about sustainability.  I hope that the readers of this “debate” have enjoyed the process as well, and I know I speak for Justin when I say: we welcome all comments!  This a dialog, a free exchange of ideas, so tell us yours and help to fuel the mutual inspiration.

(Author’s Note: I include the image above not only because, figuratively speaking, the “sun is setting” on our Sustainability dialog, but also because I will be travelling westward-ho! throughout the United States until the beginning of September.  My objective is to get some relief from my high-technology-based lifestyle right now, so the vacation will heavily consist of camping in national parks.  Therefore, I will blog if I am able to during this time, but if not… be prepared for both the Sust Enable episode debuts AND a bona fide blogging bonanza upon my return in early September.)

Without further ado,

Here are my final thoughts, in conclusion.

1) If you can learn to modify your life to be as close to environmental sustainability as possible, it is necessary that you proceed to do so. The human will is one of the most powerful–and dangerous–elements on the planet.  At first glance, it might feel like “too much” to give up using a flush toilet (just for an example).  But is it really?  Think about the idea.  Get familiar with it.  Picture what it would look like to use a composting toilet in your home.  Maybe start with a little one, to be used only sometimes.  Soon, the consequences may not seem all that daunting. There is always a choice. 

Don’t let your true identity and dreams for what the world could be become casualties of conforming.  You only have one life, so use it, in the most effective ways visible.  If many individuals decided that, deep in their hearts, ecocide felt wrong to them, that many persons when taken together comprise a mutiny against old, obsolete customs and beliefs.  Your little action today plays a role in a social revolution, of the “green” kind.

Read more of this story »

I deeply appreciate your thoughts and your comments from “Towards a (Re)Definition of Sustainability - #1″.  I can tell that this is something you’ve been chewing on!  Me too.

I believe that changing a million lightbulbs to CFLs is absolutely NOT sustainable, because CFLs are currently (and probably will never be) manufactured sustainably, and so that option is simply unacceptable in terms of one-Earth sustainability.  It may be more “green,” but it’s only an excuse to continue exploiting the Earth and its priceless natural arrangement.  Besides, what are the benefits of using more electricity versus not putting more and more mercury into our landfills and environments due to CFLs?  I’d like to see those numbers, too.

I think I seem radical (and truly, some of what I’ve tried has been too intense for me to even handle) because I demand sustainability NOW, and reinforce that sustainability can be possible NOW.  You are correct in saying that, in terms of basic “impact,” 10 people living off the grid makes less of a global difference than 1,000 people changing lightbulbs.  But will using “green” lightbulbs–or any kind of lightbulbs at all!–ever be one-Earth sustainable?

For more on this same kind of lens/perspective, check out Derrick Jensen.  He argues that, for instance, using less gasoline doesn’t mean all the gasoline won’t get used up.  We are simply attempting feel-good tactics to remove ourselves from the guilt that comes with this awareness: that we are utterly dooming ourselves and all of life on Earth by our worldwide actions.

So what’s the trade-off there: a life that’s slightly more inconvenient (but possibly more satisfying) that allows for life on Earth and a thriving ecosystem… or one single lifetime that is convenient, comfy and luxurious, at the expense of hundreds of lifetimes to come?  

Read more of this story »

Rod and Matt have started their discussion, and your invited to join in by 1) voting in the poll at the top of the forum, and 2) starting your own discussion on the topic in the Renewable Energy forum. While they’re focusing on a potential British-French partnership to ramp up the production of nuclear power, the topic and arguments have implications for all of us. So, whether you’re in London or Lincoln (any Lincoln), stop by and weigh in on this critical topic, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

After a time of inquiry, now is the time for action, and France will be present at the forefront of the fight for human rights in the 21st century. The environmental new deal is an unprecedented democratic process. The role of the State is essentially to facilitate collective action. Its mission is to foster synergy between common and sometimes competing causes. After several weeks of debate one thing is clear: dialogue works and solutions exist.

Stirring indeed. But what makes this program so exceptional? The multilateral nature of the first phase, and the democratic or collective nature of the second, according to Borloo, adding that France can lead the way for the rest of the world by fashioning a sustainable society. "As both producers and consumers we will be subject to major changes, but those changes represent an opportunity for our economy, our health and our children." Sustainable living and economic growth are not incompatible. "By protecting the environment we prepare our companies for the economic competition of the future, we improve our quality of life, and we prevent illnesses caused by pollution."

More grand statements. There is a sense of deja vu. And I cannot help but ask, as I have been asking repeatedly over the last few weeks, is there any substance behind the hype?

Within a week of taking office last Spring, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called a meeting on sustainable development and the environment. The gathering marked the beginning of the larger program that constitutes the "New Deal." In the first phase of the program, members from different sectors of society were assembled in six working groups that convened over the summer, with each group focusing on a different environmental issue. Representatives of NGOs, companies, unions, local councils and government bodies joined scientists and other specialized experts to confer on the status quo and to draft a plan of action.

The novelty lies in the diversity of the participants. Individuals and interest groups who are normally at loggerheads with one another were brought to the same negotiating table. Each delegate was equal in status with the next, and could contribute fully to the proceedings.

For example, working group number one was focused on climate change and energy needs. Jean Jouzel and Nicholas Stern were co-presidents of the group. Jouzel is an eminent French geochemist and climatologist who has carried out extensive research on climate change in Antarctica and Greenland; Stern is a prominent British economist and author of the renowned "Stern Review," a report which presents the impact of climate change on the global economy.

The NGO camp for group one consisted of delegates from international alliances such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), as well as envoys from national environmental groups. The employee camp was composed of representatives from different labor unions, including engineers, railway workers, technicians, and white-collar workers. The employer camp was comprised of leaders from various business associations, both general confederations and industry-specific alliances such as the Union of Chemical Manufacturers, and the Federation of Road Transportation. Finally, the state camp consisted of directors of government bodies such as the National Forestry Office and the Energy and Environment Agency.

It is hardly surprising that the government website features interviews with delegates who are by and large satisfied with the process and the outcome of the working groups. They admit that the challenges were great, the stakes were high, and there was a considerable time constraint, but they also refer to lively debate, a genuine exchange, progress and consensus. Delegates’ observations and remarks featured on an NGO website are much more subdued.

Bernard Cressens, program director at WWF France, participated in the workshops devoted to the subject of greening French agriculture. No one boycotted the meeting, Cressens says. A coalition of NGOs was even able to distribute a list of suggestions for use during one of the sessions. But as soon as the group began to focus on the details of a particular matter, someone, often a representative from the French Ministry of Agriculture, always raised an objection. "So — reduce the use of pesticides, yes that’s a good idea but it’s impossible; increase the percentage of organic farming in France, yes but is there the market for it; defend domestic biodiversity yes, well maybe, but…"

Olivier Louchard, a member of Climate Action Network, attended several workshops dedicated to questions of transportation and methods of reducing CO2 emissions. While he feels that the discussions were "relatively constructive," and some promising proposals were made, he was troubled by the time constraints, calling them "completely unrealistic." "It’s not possible to establish a national climate plan in only two months and certainly not one that can be implemented by the current government over the next five years." So Louchard wonders whether the government might not have its own plan of action, one that will be followed irrespective of what emerges from the working groups and the public debate.

Last week each working group drew up a report, outlining the conclusions of their discussions and providing suggestions for immediate, mid-term and long-term actions. The reports were presented at the conference on Thursday, and the second phase of the "new deal" was launched: the public debate. Anyone can participate in the debate, either by attending one of the regional meetings scheduled across the country from October 5 to 19, or by visiting the government website set up specifically for the occasion. The website is hosting a forum where the French people can leave comments on any of the reports, which are available in full and condensed versions. They can also take the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with one another.

Borloo concluded the conference by saying it has not yet been proven that another type of economic growth is possible. "But if all parts of society work together, if each day every one of us makes the right choices, if at every moment and in every aspect of our lives we vote for sustainable alternatives, then it is my conviction," he said, "that it is possible." Thus France can provide a model both in Europe and around the world, of a healthy growing and sustainable economy.

Yes, sounds great. And no, I’m not being sarcastic, or at least not regarding the general idea of the whole thing. The very fact that the working groups convened, engaged in dialogue and presented their reports, is an accomplishment in itself. The forum for public debate represents a unique opportunity for French citizens to participate and thereby hopefully become more engaged in the transformation toward sustainable living.

But, Borloo and company have cried green, twice in one month. There was the promise of the first eco-friendly Rugby World Cup. Then there was the promise of the ultra-cool green techno parade. In both cases, the government ministry and the organizing committees vowed to take actions that were entirely within the realm of the possible. So, if a promise to install proper recycling facilities at a sports stadium or along the route of a music parade cannot be kept, how can the pledge to revolutionize an entire society be taken seriously?

Image source: UMBC edu

Environmental "New Deal" French Government Website

Alliance for the Planet