There is a pretty big buzz surrounding renewable or ‘green’ energy at the moment.
We’re all looking to do our bit for the planet – reduce our carbon footprint, lessen our reliance on fossil fuels, and help the environment – but we’re all feeling the pinch. Can we really make a difference whilst saving money at the home?
The answer is, of course, yes. Here are a number of ways renewable energy can help you do your bit for the planet whist saving money in the home:
Unfortunately, this week’s conference at UCLA — The Financial Implications of Going Green — featured a few “corporate commercials,” i.e., shameless, disingenuous (and dull) promotion of an organization’s work in becoming a better steward of the environment, with little or no value to the audience. It upsets me to hear about a guy droning on about how the parent company of Fiji bottled water, an environmental obscenity if there ever were one, is installing solar panels on its headquarters roof.
Having said that, there were a few excellent presentations, including an interesting analysis of the circumstances under which certain companies clearly “do well by doing good.” In particular, a great number of case studies point to significant value accruing to companies that are sincere about sustainability initiatives, not only in terms of public image, but in terms of their ability to attract, engage and retain high-quality employees.
This is certainly a result that has intuitive appeal. No one wants to work in a setting that is oppressive, filling the world with damaging products that come at a terrific expense to the planet, and this is especially true of bright, thoughtful people. This phenomenon explains, for instance, the steady stream of requests I receive from young people willing to do unpaid internships; some folks simply want to get behind the large and growing movement to improve conditions on the planet.
I raise this point as I gear up to start my “corporate role models” blog, in which I’ll be documenting hundreds of corporations’ efforts to develop products and services that reduce waste, conserve energy or other resources, create better efficiencies, reduce toxicity, and improve conditions for workers up and down the supply chain.
At yesterday’s conference at UCLA — The Financial Implications of Going Green — I happened to sit in front of a graduate student in corporate sustainability – I forget the exact name of her program. When I asked what she was learning, she told me about a course she took last semester in transportation. I asked her for some details, and she reeled off the precise topics that I discuss when I’m asked about the future for transportation: creating consumer incentives to find alternatives to driving, car-sharing, ride-sharing, mass transit, walking/bicycling, small urban commuting vehicles, etc.
It was a pleasantly surprising experience to realize that a great number of young people are being taught – at all levels – that we’re about to undergo a radical transition in personal mobility.
Those of us who are concerned that our increased production of greenhouse gases is causing global climate change often point to the burning of coal to produce electricity as perhaps the single most disastrous phenomenon occurring in human civilization. And, breaking that down, the largest, thorniest sector of this problem is China, with its huge population demanding more energy for its increasingly Westernized lifestyle.
So where is all this coal coming from? In large measure, the U.S. In particular, Peabody Coal and SSA Marine are moving forward with plans to build the largest coal export terminal in the country in Washington — the Gateway Pacific Terminal.
If you’re of mind to make a comment on this, you may want to check out what CREDO is trying to get done, i.e., urging people to get the Army Corps of Engineers to review the environmental impacts of the project.
According to a report released last week by the UK’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers (referred to as IMechE) as much as half of all the food produced worldwide goes uneaten. This already astonishing figure is thrown into even starker relief when it is considered that, according to the latest figures from the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nation (FAO) as many as 870 million people (that’s 12% of the world’s population) are undernourished.
Whilst in the developing world, food waste is often down to imperfect farming practices, in the first world the poor use of the resources available to us is the chief problem. Here’s a look at three of the main factors that are helping to maintain this flawed system: (more…)
After all, this really IS the central issue: If the world is, as we all hope, truly “going green,” it will be happening within the context of economic implications. To me, this is what makes the concept of a responsible and sustainable use of energy resources so tantalizing: (more…)
I write often about the “tough realities” of renewable energy, and sustainability more generally. A good example is coal-fired power plants, and the fact that we can generate base-load electricity at 3 or 4 cents a kilowatt-hour with coal, unquestionably the lowest cost of any source. If you want clean energy, it’s going to cost you a bit more, and the question, therefore, is one of sacrifice; in particular, is our society willing to pay a bit more for electricity that does not cause lung disease, ocean acidification, climate change, mountaintop removal, etc? (more…)
This is not a post on gun control, but rather on U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech on the subject. His comments serve as a startling reminder of where the United States is with respect to the reform of gun-related legislation – and a number of other progressive concepts as well, e.g., renewable energy. Obama warned: (more…)
Frequent commenter Gary Tulie sent me this Wiki-article describing the 700-page “Stern Report” which, published in 2006, lays out a comprehensive set of economics regarding climate change mitigation.
From my reading of the article (though not the complete report), my first thought is the viewpoints of people like Jeremy Rifkin. In his book The Third Industrial Revolution, he makes a fairly compelling case that the development of cleantech can represent not a cost to society, but a platform on which enormous prosperity can be built in the 21st Century.
Of course, not everyone agrees. In fact, people like 350.org’s Bill McKibben and Nate Hagens (contributor to my second book, Is Renewable Really Doable?) say the precise opposite, i.e., that “the party is over” for economic growth, regardless of what we think might drive it.
But my point is that there is an enormous amount of diversity in opinion regarding the economic impact of cleantech, and there is some legitimacy to the idea that this is a boon rather than a cost.
