Green Options

Asia is investing hundreds of billions of dollars more than the US in clean technology, according to a new report by two research institutions. In the future, the US may be importing trillions of dollars of needed clean technology (and losing countless jobs to Asia) as a result.

In total, the report showed that China, Japan, and South Korea will invest about $509 billion in clean tech over the next 5 years, whereas the US (with our greenest President in decades, maybe ever) is only expected to invest $172 billion (about 3 times less) — this is assuming the climate and energy legislation in Congress passes.

If the US were to invest the same percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as South Korea, it would invest almost $140 billion per year ($700 billion over this five year period)! Compared to China, the anticipated per-GDP investment ratio is 1:4 (US to China).

In 2008, Japan almost matched US R&D spending on energy and achieved almost the same number of international clean energy patents despite having dramatically lower GDP.

The financial investment is not the only thing giving these countries a major advantage in this field, though.

With the historic passage of climate legislation through the House of Representatives, many concerns have trickled forth. Does the climate legislation do enough? Will it even work? Does it have the right aim? With the issuance of similar concerns have come proposed solutions and substitutions. The republicans have proposed that 100 nuclear power plants be built by 2030 in place of the proposed cap-and-trade climate bill. I’ve recently written two articles on the republican “solution” to both the climate and [...]

Oh! The weather outside [can be] frightful, which is why Stephen Chu of the U.S. Department of Energy announced Monday that 7 states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire) will be the recipients of more than $288 million dollars, which will be put toward weatherization projects.

The recent passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) through the House of representatives has sparked a number of debates. Opponents and proponents of the Waxman-Markley Bill have thrown words around, trying to gain support for their side. But it isn’t just the politicians who are talking.

If you ask Simran about compact florescent light bulbs, she may crack one open and cut you. Not really, that would scatter mercury, but she is loca for the light bulbs. Check Monday’s Huffington Post for the full version of this post.

People give you this whole rap about how easy saving the planet is. Change a light bulb and save the world. Yes and no. How about we consider it a start rather than an end destination?

Lighting accounts for about 20% of our electric bills. Traditional bulbs burn heat rather than light, so are extremely inefficient. Compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs) are 80% more efficient and can last up to 10 times longer than a traditional bulb. Last December, Congress voted to phase out the inefficient incandescent. By 2012, the 100-watt bulb will be history.

In the interim, environmentally-minded folks of all ilks are heralding the bulb. The virtual Stop Global Warming march reminds us swapping out three incandescent bulbs for CFLs will save us 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 a year. The Coalition On the Environment and Jewish Life suggests installing CFLs for Hanukkah as a way to redefine “energy-stretching light” and reflect environmental stewardship. Students in Pennsylvania sell light bulbs instead of candy to raise money for their schools. (Simran prefers candy.)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered to release all documents pertaining to Administrator Stephen Johnson’s controversial blocking of California’s waiver to control greenhouse gasses in that state.

The announcement came in an email released by Public Employees forEnvironmental Responsibility (PEER), saying Johnson has bowed to a Congressional request for the information, following the controversy sparked by his controversial decision.

PEER’s Executive Director Jeff Ruch is quoted as saying: “What made Johnson’s decision so striking is that for months he said he was basing it on the scientific and legal merits and then did the precise opposite. One employee told me ‘I am ashamed to admit that I work at EPA’ and another asked ‘What am I supposed to tell my children when they ask me what I am doing to fight global warming?’”

Johnson has said he will not attend a field hearing of Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA), Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on January 10th in Los Angeles. His appearance before Congress, however, promises to be contentious at best.

Well, our president raised his magical pen and signed the long-awaited, eagerly anticipated energy bill. Some people will call a leap forward and others will maintain it’s but a step. Congress will say it’s the result of compromise. I call it a sell-out to oil and industry.

OK, so we get to raise the federal standard automakers must meet to 35 mpg for passenger cars, SUVs and small trucks by the year 2020. Today’s standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and light trucks.

The bill increases ethanol production from the current 6 billion to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Detractors constantly denounce the use of food grains to make vehicular fuels, citing poor countries that depend on our surpluses, not to mention the poor starving people in the U.S. And they cite rising costs to the consumer, rich and poor alike, because of so much corn being diverted to the ethanol plant.

Farmers who raise corn are happy, the price is up to around $4 a bushel - not bad for a product that brought $2 in 2002. Livestock growers, on the other hand, see their feed costs rise just as our grocery bill is rising. In one of his more lucid moments, the president is quoted as saying, “We understand the hog growers are getting nervous. The price of corn is up.”

Yes sir, nothing like having the Chief of State up to snuff on the price of hog feed.

OK, so I’m not being nice. Make no mistake, I respect the Office of the President of the United States; however, I have little or no respect for the man sitting in it. He’s sold us out environmentally, and forced us into an illegal war. What’s to like?

Now he praises the signing of an energy bill that wouldn’t have gotten this far unless he had gotten his way. Let’s look at that. He threatened a veto unless a $21 billion tax increase for industry and the oil companies was eliminated. Congress did what politicians do, compromise in order to get half a loaf. An almost ironic, or sad note, Congress delivered the legislation to the White House in a gas-hybrid sedan. Not even a blend of ethanol? Tacky.

I’ve witnessed this kind of thing from Congress for decades, so that’s why you hear my sarcasm and rage over the bastardization of a system that was designed “for the people”.

Renewable energy advocates are clearly disappointed with the recently passed version of the 2007 energy bill. Yes, there is an important increase in auto fuel efficiency, but considering that CAFE hasn’t been upped in nearly 30 years, I don’t think Congress should be patting themselves on the back too hard for that one. However, a little piece of renewable energy legislation may have sneaked into the farm bill without too many Republicans noticing, and it just might have a [...]