Monthly Archives: May 2011
Vermont Really Is Different in So Many Ways — Energy Policy Is Only One
| May 31, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
When I was growing up as a small boy near Philadelphia, I remember discussions with my father , colorful as they were, on the people in the states within half a day’s drive of us. Then, when I moved up into Connecticut to go to college, I remember his telling me even more about his assessment of Vermonters: “JC (short for J. Craig),” he said, “If you’re not from Vermont, they don’t want you in Vermont.”
I always regarded this as quizzical, not that I was unfamiliar with racism and xenophobia. It’s just that I didn’t impute this kind of stuff to a northern state where, it seemed to me, no one looked terribly different than anyone else. Couldn’t I sneak in and out without anyone’s knowing the difference?
But, as I’ve come to learn, the folks from Vermont really DO view things a bit differently. If you don’t believe me, I hope you’ll check this out.
Related posts:
Senior Pentagon Officials Say National Security Should Be Achieved Through Peaceful Means — At Least That’s What I Think They Said
| May 31, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
I don’t know how excited to get about the podcast contained in this article – mostly because it’s so riddled in military double-speak that it’s practically incomprehensible. But here’s a story that, I believe, communicates that two extremely highly placed Pentagon officials – both Special Assistants to the Chairman for Strategy to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, are recommending a new path to national security.
They are claiming, I want to believe, that in the future, security will be attained less by guns and bombs than by promoting things like education and healthcare. It seems to recognize that the value of force, control, and domination – if it ever actually did exist – is now overshadowed by being a visible and demonstrable force for good, peace, sustainability, and harmony. I hope listeners will try to make sense of it and tell me if I’ve gotten the gist. This is certainly good news if I’ve gotten it right.
For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in this world of the Pentagon. When I speak, I need to say something. I lack the patience – or maybe just the talent with language – to dance around an issue for 10 minutes without actually making a point.
Related posts:
Are We Giving Renewable Energy the Run-Around?
| May 31, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
I just spoke with the proprietor of a very well-established and well-diversified energy solutions company in New York, focusing on a range of residential, commercial, and industrial customers. He happened to have seen my piece on Joe Biden’s speech, and told me: “If you want real malarkey, you have to come to New York. We take the cake.”
When I asked what he meant, he explained.
The paperwork to even begin a solar project is so onerous that virtually no one can put up with it. It’s a pile of documents to be signed by the customer and the contractor, submitted to NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority). Then you wait, and wait.
In three months you get a response that tells you that a certain document is missing. Well, it wasn’t required when we submitted “The Package” three months ago, but it sure as hell is now. So we submit it. And then we wait some more.
I can put a 37-ton air-conditioner on your roof this afternoon. But if I want to put a 37-pound solar panel on your roof, watch out. It’s the paperwork I just described, plus a bonus! I need an insurance policy with special wording that could cost thousands of dollars.
The same people who will make a speech claiming all the great work they’ve done to take us to clean energy are the exact same people making it impossible. Solar contractors are dropping like flies, simply because the restrictions are just too tough. They’d rather be laying bricks, and I can’t see how anyone could possibly blame them.
That’s sad, folks.
Related posts:
Exactly Why is the US At War in Iraq and Afghanistan?
| May 31, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Sustainability |
I often wonder exactly why the US is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and frequently I’m afforded the opportunity to try to understand this better.
In previous posts I’ve mentioned that I occasionally go to parties with professors at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who are experts in terrorism. One of them, Ray Zilinskas, has recently co-authored the second edition of the Encyclopedia of Bioterrorism Defense, a copy of which I leafed through at a Memorial Day barbecue. Wow. 668 pages, list price $449.00, providing “complete coverage of bioterrorism and defense against it, spanning scientific, technological, clinical, legal, historical, and political aspects.” A weighty piece indeed.
What I found most interesting in my conversations with Ray, however, was that he really can’t weigh in on when, where, or how probably such an event would take place. “What are these people’s philosophies?” I asked. “What are they trying to accomplish? What would drive them to take such a terrible course of action as to sicken and kill whole populations of innocent people? I hear they’re motivated by revenge, is that right? If that’s true, isn’t the US course of action from a military standpoint actually counter-productive?”
This isn’t Ray’s area – which I can understand. But I’m reminded of the American pragmatist philosopher William James writing on the importance of his subject. I can’t find the quote, but to paraphrase:
There is nothing more important about a person or his group than their philosophy. Suppose you have an enemy. Sure you want to know how many of them there are, and what weapons they may possess. But don’t you really want to know their philosophy?
We commonly hear that one can’t wage a war on terrorism, as it’s a tactic, not a people. It’s like waging war on flame-throwers. This is true, but behind the tactic, there are people, and motivating the people are philosophies.
In any case, this inquiry as to the US motive for war in the Middle East came up empty, but I’ll keep trying.
Related posts:
Our Success in Clean Energy Is a Function of Our Values
| May 30, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Sustainability |
Frequent commenter Don Harmon writes:
How come there are giant hit shows on American TV where all the energy is focused on giving a kid a chance to become the next “American Idol” and there are NO shows on American TV about giving a kid a chance to become employed in the Clean Energy field? When you figure that one out, you will have your answer about America’s future in the next decade as far as holding its own as a super power.
This is precisely correct, Don. When my friend Wally Rippel speaks in public, he often asks the audience to name a famous movie star, then a famous athlete, a famous criminal, and a famous singer. Hands spring up all over the room. Finally, he asks for the name of a famous scientist, and watches as the room fidgets nervously. There, he explains, is where our future lies. Until we value our scientists as much as we value our pop stars, we’re doomed to become a third-rate power.
Related posts:
Biden’s Clean Energy Speech: US Will Lead the Global Clean-Energy Revolution. Great! Can We Get Started Soon?
| May 28, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Joe Biden believes that the US, armed as it is with its “entrepreneurial spirit and innovative national labs,” will “lead the global clean-energy revolution and reap the economic and environmental benefits that go with it.” At least, this is what he told an audience that packed an auditorium at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) earlier this week.
Damn! I’m so sorry I missed that speech, as I’m sure it was grounded in solid fact, as most political speeches are. Hey, he didn’t happen to mention when all this was supposed to get started, did he?
Democrats make empty speeches about US leadership in clean energy. But I suppose that’s marginally better than Republicans, who have relatively little to say on the subject other than convincing voters that environmentalism is bad for the economy, that the imperative to move away from fossil fuels is over-hyped, and that the super-profitable oil companies still need huge subsidies from taxpayers.
However, while we here in the US are busy talking about renewables (or remaining silent about it, as the case may be), the Chinese and others are actually making it happen. China has a large and ever-widening lead in global clean energy investment; according to Bloomberg, they’ll spend 5 trillion yuan (nearly $740 billion) over the next 10 years on renewable energy projects.
America lives with constant uncertainty and the vigorous flip-flops that immediately follow every two-year election cycle. While all this makes for lively debate, which I suppose is good for voter turn-out and approval ratings, understandably, it renders investors quite nervous. In fact, it means death to any hope for the solid stream of capital formation that will be necessary to make clean energy a reality.
We’re good at rancor; we’ve proven that, year after year. Now we need something that we’ve not yet been able to demonstrate: a commitment to go beyond the name-calling and gross over-simplifications — the strength to build a consensus that will move us forward in an effective and practical manner.
But does there really seem to be any change on the horizon? If there is, I sure don’t see it. I liken this to the alcoholic who, until he hits rock bottom, refuses to cart himself off to rehab and clean up his life. I see the same situation for clean energy in the US; we haven’t sunk low enough to create the necessary motivation.
Unless there is a dramatic shift in our approach, in about a decade Americans will wake up one day to realize that the country they love is now number three or four in clean energy – an industry that will have come to dominate the world economy. We will have lost the most important economic battle in the 21st Century. Maybe better said: we will have sat on the sidelines and watched the rest of the world fight the most important economic battle in the 21st Century.
I predict that this tragic event will spawn some real change in leadership, albeit too late, as we’re a nation that really doesn’t like to lose. I’m reminded of the words of George C. Scott as General George Patton: “Americans love a winner, and they will not tolerate a loser.”
Yes, Americans will eventually place a limit on their tolerance for failure and humiliation. But wouldn’t it be easier to fight hard and win now? Perhaps a timely question to ask, as we memorialize the millions of fallen soldiers and the sacrifices they made to keep America strong.
Related posts:
2GreenEnergy – May’s Survey on the Migration to Clean Energy
| May 28, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
May I ask a quick favor? Do you mind spending a few minutes on this month’s 2GreenEnergy survey?
Like the rest of the world, I’m trying to make sense of a very important issue: Why is the migration away from fossil fuels so painfully slow? Of course, this is a complicated question. In fact, there are lots of reasons that come into play – and in varying amounts. But some are more important than others, and I’d love to get your input on the matter.
If you’re willing to help me out, please click the link; you’ll find that it’s self-explanatory. Thanks in advance.
Related posts:
[The Vector] Clean Energy News: New Approaches Needed to Mainstream Sustainable Living — Continued
| May 27, 2011 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Sustainable Building |
… Continued from earlier post …
The authors reviewed the various barriers and issues, not all addressed here, but went further. They proposed 12 ideas to start closing the barrier gap on renewable choices for the masses today:
1) Make it normal
Make people feel that everybody is doing it or everybody is using the product. Use psychology and don’t make it elitist or seemingly for hippies. Use the example, says the report, of Montana when they wanted to bring down drunk driving. When they used the ad “Most of us don’t drink and drive,” drunk driving dropped 14%. Not driving drunk was perceived as normal. An example from China was that the government gave away a free solar water heater to anyone in Yunnan province that installed a proper toilet. Rooftop heaters became normal and even a status symbol, while sanitation improved and greener energy was implemented. Using solar became “normal”. Read More
Related posts:
How Urgent Is Replacing Coal As Fuel? Check Out the 2010 Film “The Last Mountain”
| May 26, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Levelheaded people often refer to themselves as “pragmatists” – those who understand all sides of an issue and work forward to a solution that meets the practical requirements of everyone involved. With respect to energy policy, this usually means regarding the mining and burning of coal (that here in the US generates 48% of our electricity) as a “necessary evil.”
I’m not sure, however, that most people who see the 2010 film “The Last Mountain” leave the theater with that circumspect “we’ll get to it when we can” attitude. I hope readers will click the link above and spend the two minutes required to review the trailer. From there, let your conscience be your guide.
Related posts:
Can Someone Explain Toyota’s Lethargy in the Electric Vehicle Space?
| May 26, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
I often wonder what caused Toyota to invest $50 million in Tesla. Obviously they deemed it important in expediting their introduction of electric vehicles. But doesn’t a company the size of Toyota have a considerable gaggle of engineers who know their way around EVs, after a decade of tinkering with the Prius?
Perhaps Toyota is so wrapped up in engineering and PR problems that it wanted to get some of the R&D workload in electric vehicles off its plate. Or maybe they figured that Tesla’s nimble management style might be able to make faster progress. And note that currently, Toyota is not only a stockholder, but a customer as well; it placed an order for 35 electric conversions of the RAV4 EV, the competitor to the Ford Escape, Honda CRV, and Chevy Equinox, all small sport utility vehicles.
I know others also struggle to make sense of some of the auto behemoths’ decisions, but I find Toyota’s behavior in the EV space to be especially mysterious. After the homerun they hit with the Prius, it seems otherworldly that they haven’t done a better job in advancing electric transportation. They claim to they have no fewer than 10 EV models “under development,” and I suppose that could be true. But why on Earth would you wait while other folks take the lead and render you an afterthought in a strategic part of the industry?
Here’s a theory: it’s obvious that the car companies have gone into the EV age kicking and screaming. But resisting this change, while it was certainly in their interest, was not within their power — and now their hand has been forced. My guess is that Toyota misread the timing of the pressure they would receive from Nissan and the others. Now, they’re playing catch-up — and under horribly adverse circumstances – part of which is the damage they sustained recently to their supply chain, with numerous vendors wiped out by the tsunami.
Nothing else can explain their lethargy in this space, and announcements of totally lame products, like the Prius V. Here we are in mid-2011 and the new Prius still has no plug?
Sorry. No plug? No deal.
