There are many components to the cost of growing food and shipping it to its final destination – a surprisingly large part of which is energy. Moving water around the state of California uses 18 percent of all the electricity and 31 percent of the natural gas consumed in the state.

And of course, pumping water is only one element of the energy that is part of the food supply chain. Think of the:

• Manufacturing and transportation of fertilizers and pesticides
• Sowing, harvesting, and processing
• Transporting the food to market

The average food item we consume in the U.S. travels 1200 miles to reach our supermarkets, and even “fresh” food is two weeks old (and far less nutritious than it was when it was harvested) by the time it gets to us.

Thus it is with great pleasure that I say that I’m fairly close to entering the aeroponics business. Though I can’t provide too many details rat this moment, I can point out that aeroponics maximizes the yield of pure, organic food with no synthetic chemicals or toxins. Plants are grown in an automatically controlled mist — a mixture of water, air, and naturally occurring minerals. Plants grow better and faster than they do in soil, in a system that has a far smaller eco-footprint than conventional agribusiness.

I think of aeroponics as a single solution that speaks to many super-hot topics simultaneously:

• Organic farming

• Locally grown

• Food deserts (An area in the industrialized world where healthy, affordable food is difficult to obtain, prevalent in rural as well as urban areas)

• Shortages of energy/water/food in the face of climate change / extreme weather conditions

• High fuel prices / Oil scarcity

More on this soon.

I think we’ve all had experiences that were such unmitigated disasters that they were actually funny. That’s the bottom line on today’s book signing at Roblar, a very nice local winery with which friends had made arrangements for me.

Not only did I not sell a single book, but I was heckled by a couple of the wine-tasters. This is a very “God and Country” part of the world, so, sadly, the whole concept of clean energy is met with a degree of skepticism and even derision.

I had a guy exclaim from halfway across a crowded room, “I don’t believe in global warming.”

“You needn’t,” I replied. “But you do believe in lung cancer, right? And terrorism?” When he nodded, I smiled and said, “Then you’re JUST the type who would have a natural affinity for the subject.” He clearly hated me. Of course, I had embarrassed him, which I regretted.

Later, a tall and broad-shouldered lady who looked like she might have been carved out of a giant block of granite told me that all we have to do is open up the state for oil drilling. “That would solve all our energy AND our money problems,” she intoned. “Yes, that’s true,” I responded. My follow-on, “But mightn’t it cause other problems?” fell on deaf ears.

Oh well. A few good conversations, and a few sips of wine. Could have been worse. If that’s the biggest catastrophe in my life, I should count myself lucky.

Each week I receive several emails requesting my advice on career paths within the clean energy space. I thought I’d take a few minutes and jot down a few of the ideas that I normally try to express in response.

First, I congratulate people who want to work in this industry, especially if their interest is rooted in a love of the natural environment and perhaps a sense of duty, or at least a wish, to do something good for mankind and the other 8.7 million species of life forms here on our home planet. But regardless of motive, clean energy is one of few arenas in which there exists a beautiful confluence of the profitable and the philanthropic; we’re helping mankind whether that’s our aim or not.

It’s a shame that there are so few such opportunities, but that does seem to be the case. We tend to think that we either fight hard to protect the jobs we have, as much as we may detest them — jobs that create pollution, addictions, obesity, junky products designed to be obsolete — or we risk starvation in order to pursue our dreams. For once, good opportunities and good citizenship are running together; let’s begin by noting that.

Next, I point out that picking an exact discipline within the realm of clean energy is tough, for many reasons. For instance, there are dozens of  different clean energy technologies, and it’s hard to know at this point which ones will come to dominate the landscape of tomorrow.

Complicating matters further, we’ve all seen instances in which an inferior product came to lead the market. If you doubt this, you need look no further than the computer you’re reading this piece on, which, in all likelihood, runs a Microsoft operating system. Computer experts in the 1990s (when I was paying closer attention to this subject) described Windows as an “abomination”; some referred to it as “the equivalent of cancer for a computer” — yet it came to command the marketplace.

But even in a perfect world, picking winners is tricky business, because of the huge variety of factors that influence the outcome. As an example, will solar thermal receive the support it needs from the public and private sector such that sufficient R&D will be focused on lowering costs and boosting efficiencies?  Right now, it’s an open question, but it’s a critical one.  If the answer is yes, most observers believe there exists huge potential here; but if the answer is no, it’s essentially doomed to remain a non-event in the energy world.

Then there is the issue of breadth. The science, i.e., the physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and so forth, is just one aspect to the successful implementation of clean energy. Think of the sheer number of disciplines that are required if we are to make the migration from fossil fuels. Here’s a partial list:

Education, Marketing, Sales, and Public Relations: Someone needs to enlighten a population of people who are currently being told that they should support the “drill baby drill” policy; the world (at least the United States) is being force-fed utter lies about the legitimacy of the oil and coal companies — erroneous beliefs that someone must set right.  We have a very long road ahead of us here — which is sad in a way, though it opens up significant career opportunities.

Manufacturing and Construction: I conducted the first interview in my most recent book, “Is Renewable Really Doable?” with Robert Pollin, Ph.D.,  Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Dr. Pollin also functions as a consultant to the Energy Department on implementing the Obama Administration’s stimulus program.

Here’s part of what he told me re: job growth in the energy efficiency sector:

My own estimates are in the range of $800 billion worth of work if you retrofitted basically the entire existing building stock to the level necessary, which of course is not going to happen, but at least analytically, there’s no reason for it not to happen because it does save people money. So that is a big project, and think about it, there’s no way this is importing competition; it has to be done in local communities.

And it’s relatively labor intensive; it offers opportunities for people with relatively low credentials. To retrofit an average project if you spend $1 million, you’ll get about eight jobs directly, and another eight jobs either indirectly—meaning jobs for the suppliers—or jobs created through a multiplier effect, through people having more money because they have jobs and then they’re spending the money. So you’ll get between 16 to 17 jobs per million-dollar expenditure in retrofit projects. Which is good. It’s not the best, but it’s certainly the best in the area of energy.

This is a project that could go on for 20 years and could make everybody save money – and I mean everybody. There are subsidies out there, but the market really hasn’t taken off yet.

Let’s compare spending money on green energy versus fossil fuels. You’re going to get about three times more jobs per dollar of expenditure through clean energy, and here I’m referring both to efficiency and renewable investments. Three to one.

Now yes, part of that is because the pay level and the skill requirements for the clean energy jobs tend to be lower. I don’t see that as necessarily so bad because it creates more entry-level jobs. Some of them have decent job ladders, and the other thing is because you’re creating three times more jobs overall, in absolute terms you’re going to have more jobs of all types, of all quality levels, of all pay levels. That’s something else that I’ve shown.

So yes, proportionately, dollar for dollar you get higher quality, more skill and education requirements through spending in the fossil fuel economy, but that does not compensate for the fact that dollar for dollar you get three times more jobs overall in clean energy; you get more jobs at all levels through the clean energy economy.

Law: The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)  bills itself as the nation’s most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals.

At the end of the day, this breadth is a good thing. What it means is that there are tons of different ways of approaching the subject and involving oneself within it.

As I like to say when I’m asked this question on radio or television interviews: with the possible exception of Scottish Folk Tunes, every single subject that one can take in college has bearing in one way or another on the migration to clean energy.

Think about it: in addition to the science/technological side, we have:

• Sociology – How do groups of people think and act with respect to social and anti-social behavior?

• Anthropology – How has mankind evolved to deal with the long-range planning that is so essential to our survival at this point?

• Psychology – At an individual level, how do people react to the challenge of doing the right thing, even if it’s a bit more expensive?

• Economics – Who will bear the cost of renewable energy and cleantech?

• Political science – How should our elected leaders help to make this happen?

• Philosophy – What are our rights as they relate to common property like the oceans and skies? Our moral obligations?

I suppose I would simply remind career-minded people who are looking into clean energy to choose a discipline that they actually enjoy. Not everyone likes to sell, just as not everyone’s good at thermodynamics. But everyone likes something, and in this case that’s all that matters. My advice:  just pick a “something” that you like – and then get damn good at it.

Next Saturday I’m doing a book signing at the wonderful Roblar Winery a couple of miles up the road. Though I can’t imagine that I’ll sell more than a dozen books or so, I’m really looking forward to the experience: sipping excellent wine, and talking to people about renewable energy.

Bruce writes:

Wake up, if you want to stop pollution, stop polluting yourself and quit blaming the people that enable you to do the dirty work yourself. Take some personal responsibility. Environmental issues are never going to be solved as long as we concentrate on what others should do instead of what we ourselves can do. You have a choice. Stop talking and start doing or quit whining.

Ahem.

It’s certainly true that we form the world in which we live with our purchasing behavior. And I have to admit that, while I’m fairly decent in this department, I could be better.

But, Bruce, I did feel compelled to make a point here on behalf of the entire 2GreenEnergy team. We actually ARE doing; we ARE making a difference. In fact, we’ve helped hundreds of people in countries all over the world connect up and form businesses based around energy efficiency and renewables. I have emails from people in countries I didn’t know existed thanking us for our help. At the same time, we’ve communicated what we believe to be the truth in this space to many hundreds of thousands, creating a better informed, more energy-literate student population and electorate.  We’re proud of what we’ve accomplished — and we’re just getting started.

A reader asked for my opinion on this article in RealClearScience, a well-written and innocuous primer on renewable energy.

The premise: “keep pushing, but push smarter” is hard to argue with. I’m reminded of people who caution “Be careful!” when someone trips or bumps his head. Being careful (as opposed to careless) is always good advice, but, since people don’t injure themselves deliberately, such statements really don’t add much value after an accident. The situation is the same in renewable energy, i.e., no person or agency invests in technology that they know in advance to be a loser.

The article does point out a few things that are of practical importance, even if they aren’t exactly news. E.g., the long-term subsidies for oil generate enormous investor confidence, in stark contrast to the here-today-gone-tomorrow support for clean energy that has investors running away as fast as their legs will carry them. Another correct assertion: fossil fuels come with externalities that need to be considered in our discussions on cost.

The concept that we need to get smarter about renewables is completely noncontroversial, but what remains in doubt is society’s willingness to make the tough calls — starting with some of the issues we’ve been discussing here.  In particular, if there is any sincerity whatsoever in our desire to see alternative energy in our future, it will begin by manifesting itself in a level playing field on which to evaluate the relative merits of all approaches to energy.

Global warming is a challenge to which investment in renewable energy is socially and economically a solution.  Government is the greater endeavor, a nation state is a magnanimous cornucopia for growth of clean energy deployment. Clean energy is nourishment for clean industrialization and cheap domestic and industrial energy necessary for human development. Nations where governance has been good, citizens have good welfare, they have adequate affordable clean energy that guarantees their future sustainable health, clean beautiful environment and they will have greater grand children.

Let’s look at what government of United States of America has done as a government quintessential for clean energy development.

The Congress of United States of America has a political responsibility with respect to the promotion of clean energy development. Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 restating the United States’ commitment to not stray from adherence to international clean energy legal requirements. Stephen Chu, the US Secretary of Energy in 2009 ensured that the federal state remains completely committed to collaboration to mitigate global climate change.

The US Chamber of Commerce created the Innovation, Development and Empowerment Alliance (IDEA). The IDEA was formed by companies to lobby for favorable patent laws. Congress prior to the UNFCCC Copenhagen Conference, that reiterated the adherence of United States to the provisions of the TRIPS agreement, three bills were passed by the House of representatives and one Senate bill, ensuring that the US complied with international clean energy development policy. Forty two US Senators signed a letter advocating for intellectual property protection.

Clean energy development is business of responsible men and women, who take political, professional, moral and leadership responsibility as President, Minister, Legislator and those high voltage people in government , intergovernmental organizations, industry, research institutions, civil society and the responsible citizens. Governments that take serious international agreements, have political responsibility in promoting industry and investment, govern responsible citizens are those to succeed in clean energy development, like the United States of America.

Joshua Okomo is Proprietor Environment Stores & Logistics

You feel the rumblings of the cleantech revolution reverberating beneath your feet, as if you were standing next to an active volcano that could erupt at any second. You recognize that our world will soon be clamoring for sustainability in all its many forms, as we wake up to the fact that dinosaur technologies: inefficient appliances, gas-guzzling cars and trucks, toxic chemicals, last-century’s lighting and HVAC, coal-fired power plants, etc. are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. You’re confident of this trend, and you’re willing to place a wager on it.

I’m Craig Shields, an author and consultant in this space who, every month, reviews literally hundreds of cleantech ideas, and speaks with dozens of entrepreneurs and investors all over the world.  Occasionally I see a match.  And when I do, I make an introduction.

Now that we know one another, I suggest that we talk about our future together.  I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

My posts at 2GreenEnergy somehow wind up on CleanTechies Blog where an entirely new set of readers post comments. Here’s a cogent response from a certain David Dunn to my piece “Why Are Investors Bearish on Clean Energy?“

Investment in alternative energy will remain limited until everyone knows the real costs involved.

All the economics of processes and manufacturing at present are distorted by huge grants, subsidies and the huge amount of pollution and environmental controls, and not to mention all the moral and ethical regulations governing labour employment.

The field that everyone is playing on in the alternative energy market is so distorted by all these issues and until a simpler, more equal and fair way of applying incentives, no real way forward will occur, as it will be continually tripped up by the real distortion caused by the highly complex system we have in place at present.

This is exactly right. We say we want a free market economy with its invisible hand to guide the development of cleantech, yet we are a million miles from such an environment, with our:

1) large and predictable subsidies to the oil companies, vs. our small and erratic subsidies for renewable energy, and

2) refusal to include the externalities in the pricing of energy sources

Until we can address these issues, there will be no mystery associated with investors’ feeble appetite for this sector.