Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

Despite intense debate surrounding the growing global food crises, the European Union today defended expanding the use of biofuels in all 27 member countries. Part of the EU’s climate change package, the current proposal sets a target of meeting 10% of transportation fuel with biofuels by 2020.

As I reported last week, Europe’s EPA advised suspending the EU’s biofuel targets until a comprehensive environmental analysis could be completed. Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, said no way is that going to happen:

“You can’t change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives,” meaning that changing biofuels targets could lead to questioning the entire climate change package.

Adding to the ongoing discussion about biofuels affecting worldwide food prices (see Biodiesel Is Raising Food Prices), NPR’s Morning Addition briefly interviewed World Bank President Robert Zoellick last Friday.

Zoellick called it a “perfect storm of things coming together…” and listed 7 different issues contributing to the increasing cost of food, which led to rioting in Haiti and Egypt last week, along with a general strike in Burkina Faso:

Increased world demand for grains and vegetable oils due to population growth (esp. in China and India), the weak dollar, agricultural production problems around the world, and $100/barrel oil are some of the driving factors accounting for increasing food prices.

After covering 22 of the most popular myths about biodiesel, I realized I’d only given lip service to a major issue: increasing food prices. In Myth #2, I mentioned that the goal of biodiesel production is to move away from food-based feedstocks.

But until that happens, the question remains: if I use biodiesel made from soybeans right now, am I contributing to the larger problem of increasing commodity prices and starving poor people?

If solar panels cost $1/watt, you can sell them (installation included) for $2/watt. Coal (installation included) costs $2.10/watt. To date, solar is still reaching to compete with coal, but the margins are closing. To (over)simplify how this works, you need to ignore issues like subsidies, qualitative costs, or kinks in the supply chain, and boil it down to money. Two hurtles that must be jumped before photo voltaic solar cells become cheaper than coal: efficiency and production cost. Fortunately the solar industry has already made important gains in both. Today, we’re going to talk about two types of solar panels: silicon and thin-film, and solar’s quest for $1/watt.

Presidential election campaign 2008 is well underway. And already the grade school politics are brought to the election playground.
In recent news, both Democratic front runners, in an attempt to woo voters, called for renegotiations of NAFTA. They also threatened to pull out of the trade agreement if U.S. demands aren’t met. Clearly a case of, “do what I want because our economic and military might can beat up your economic and military might.”

The North American Free Trade Agreement, has been under scrutiny since its inception.

Thankfully we have Republican Candidate John McCain to defend this groundbreaking trade agreement.

NAFTA isn’t perfect. It was the first time a free trade agreement existed among such economically disparate countries. It was definitely a great experiment, and a lot has been learned from the results. There is no denying that there have been significant advances in a globally sustainable market that was enabled by NAFTA.

How much does business-as-usual cost? This morning, Green Car Congress reported that the US is projected to pay $440 billion for imported petroleum in 2008:

The increase to the estimated $440 billion for 2008 is based on an average $90 per barrel crude oil price for the year. In 2002, before the current bull market for oil began, US oil imports cost less than $103 billion. The preliminary figures for last year came to some $327 billion.

With little prospect for cheaper gas prices in the future, any decrease in the US export bill will have to come from a reduction in petroleum usage.

Which brings to mind two important questions:

1. What percentage of our Gross Domestic Product will the US have to export before things start to change dramatically?
2. Where is all this money going, anyway?

As I monitored the results of Tuesday’s primaries, mostly thanks to my Twitter friends, I was once again struck how the candidates and general population are ignoring the greatest issue facing human kind: climate change. Media outlet after media outlet proclaimed the economy as the greatest concern of voters; however, the connection to the environment seems to be lost in the hype. Not only is environmental degradation caused by our hunger for rapid, continual economic growth, but the environment also offers the solution to leading us out of recession.

Whether you like it or not, we live in a corporatocracy where decisions are made in favor of short term profits in contrast to the long term effects on our environment. When we expect that our economy will perpetually grow without considering the environmental consequences of corporate decisions, we are doomed. This is what the presidential candidates should be talking about: how can we ensure a stable economy that protects the environment. The solution is green jobs.

I, for one, don’t remember the stagflation of the 1970s.

It was a time when prices were increasing at the gas pump and grocery store, and when the economy sputtered along with little or no growth. Some neighbors saw their wages flatten — or their jobs disappear altogether. Gold, often seen as a barometer of economic confidence, was at an all time high (adjusted for inflation). I was pre-teen in a comfty Detroit suburb with a father who worked at then stalwart, GM, so a roof over my head and food on the table was never a concern.

But here we are today, with Priuses outselling Suburbans. Oil and gold are at all time highs. Things seem far more perplexing, interconnected, global. First, there’s the perception of a housing crunch, even though fretting over a 15 percent decline in home values over the last year or two seems rather odd given the incredible run-up of many homes over the past decade, sometimes by over 100 percent.

Second, the sub-prime mortgage mess has snared many who agreed with greedy lenders that living beyond our means was okay. That more jobs are being outsourced overseas or replaced by fancy machines in this increasingly global marketplace isn’t helping either.

Even if the Federal Reserve or Congress and the Bush Administration do manage to convince the American people that they should keep on spending by splurging with windfall tax refund checks — thus avoiding a recession — the printing presses rolling off fresh greenbacks and mounting debt on a national level could result in the onset of stagflation. Oil, while swinging up and down with the speculator’s bets and value of the dollar, will continue on its upward trajectory reflecting the reality of “peak oil,” the period by which its extraction and refinement will get ever more expensive and difficult. Our economy, and those linked around the world, are based on this fuel and this fuel is largely denominated in US dollars. When the dollar falls in value, the price of a barrel of oil must increase.

So why will ecopreneurial businesses fare any different than all the rest if, in

An economic analysis released February 25th shows major gains for the U.S. job market and GDP from 2007’s ethanol industry boom (emphasis added):

The analysis, conducted by John Urbanchuk of LECG, LLC, determined that the increase in economic activity resulting from ongoing production and construction of new capacity supported the creation of 238,541 jobs in all sectors of the economy during 2007. These include more than 46,000 jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The goods and services required to produce the estimated 6.5 billion gallons in 2007 added $47.6 billion to the Gross Domestic Product and raised household incomes by $12.3 billion.

While the gains themselves aren’t all that surprising, they may turn the conventional wisdom that “ethanol subsidies are bad” on its head since increased tax revenue actually paid them off:

Korea’s rapid industrialization can be felt everywhere, from the coastal landscapes, which are dotted with factories, to the large cities–Seoul, Busan, and Daegu–which often have air quality so poor that skylines are swallowed in smog.

Now, the outgoing government of Korea has passed new legislation to combat this pollution and join in the international battle against climate change.

The aptly named “Act on Climate Change” will establish an emissions trading market, raise the bar for renewable energy, assist in reducing industrial, home, and vehicle emissions, and increase carbon capture.

Global warming is the most serious environmental threat of our time.

As these facts show, affordable options are available. And America cannot afford to fall behind any more in the race to invent clean, renewable energy sources.

45%

Increase in world’s solar generating capacity in 2005.

2

Rank of China as global producer of solar cells, behind Japan (U.S. ranks 4th).

$1.5 billion

Amount U.S. government spends a year on renewable energy research.

$1 billion

ExxonMobil’s daily revenue.