If you’ll be in Southern California next Tuesday, March 22, and want to check out an interesting event, its sponsors, our friends at OnGreen.com, are giving away tickets to the first 10 of our readers who register here. The event, “Powering Cleantech Innovation Worldwide,” has a good-looking roster of speakers and panels. I’ll be there, if you want to say hello.
..continued from an earlier article
Manufacturing has been on the decline for decades. Manufacturing jobs have shrunk 21% between 1998 and 2007. This has left workers in need of jobs and states in need of new industries. As a case in point, Michigan has lost auto manufacturing jobs and had the highest unemployment rate in the U.S. by March 2009. The Governor is focusing on the clean energy economy as a major part of planned recovery, planning to create clean energy jobs for its reisdents in the “No Worker Left Behind“ program. (more…)
Every time I hear intelligent people refute the idea of global warming based on the power of Mother Nature I really can’t believe my ears.
Last week, I spoke with three people who appeared bright enough, all of whom told me that humans simply don’t have the power to screw up a force as powerful as nature. As proof, one of these guys, on a live radio interview in front of 70,000 listeners, said, “Hey, the temperature of the planet was changing long before the Industrial Revolution.” Another pointed out that the BP oil spill was overhyped, because microbes instantly began eating the oil. In agreement, the third fellow pointed to the video footage of the Japanese tsunami – testimony to the awesome force of the natural world.
Sure nature is awesome. And just as sure, it doesn’t need people; if it had conscious awareness, I’m sure it would be thrilled to see us erased from the face of the globe. But I’m at a loss to understand how, regardless of its power, that anyone could think it’s impervious to damage from mankind’s ceaseless pumping out toxins, deforestation, strip-mining, fracking, ocean dumping, changing the make-up of our atmosphere, and so forth. Is it really hard to believe that our practices are making it tough for Mother Nature to support life here?
I was the guest on a really good hour-long radio interview this afternoon on KMMS-AM, a popular talk/news station in Bozeman, MT. Host Larry Stancil and I didn’t agree on everything (in fact, we agreed on very little) but we got along fine, and I think everyone learned a great deal. We only had one caller, and he was extremely civil.
To be honest, I was surprised; I was braced for a brouhaha, as I had been told that some of those folks don’t like environmentalists telling them they can’t shoot wolves, etc. But cooler heads prevailed. I’ll post a link to the show when I receive it.
Elizabeth Eckhardt writes:
If our goal is to decrease our energy demand through increasing efficiencies throughout all aspects of our lives, there is an obvious, simple, safe, sane, and humane way to do this: stop eating animals. Animal agriculture in the United States consumes 1/3 of our fossil fuels produced, and contributes more to global greenhouse gas emissions than all the world’s cars and SUV’s combined.
She continues in a very well written and compelling comment to my piece about the renewable energy’s tough realities — here.
Though I’m not a vegetarian, I try to eat as low on the food chain as possible (I go through a heck of a lot of fish) – and for the precise reasons you name. It’s better for me, better for the planet, and better for the cow.
Having said that, it’s not a sacrifice for me, because I really like fish. My point here is that few people make sacrifices for the good of the planet alone.
I was listening to a radio show recently in which I was reminded that Paul McCartney (a vegan) makes it easy for people to modify their eating habits. He asks them to experiment with giving up meat one day a week. “How about meatless Monday?” he might ask. I find this interesting, because you’ll travel a long way to find someone who knows more about connecting to people than McCartney.
I spent the day yesterday with one of my “Craig Shields … At Your Service” clients, in this case, brainstorming dozens of ideas with a husband and wife team looking to invest in a start-up business somewhere in the sustainable products/services sector. You have to like their overall approach; it’s very responsible. Instead of picking something that sounds good and jumping into it, they’re attacking the challenge in a methodical, thoughtful, research-based way.
As a consulting action, this was somewhat rare for the importance of understanding and integrating the individual strengths and weaknesses – as well as likes and dislikes – to the conversation. But as important an ingredient as this is in the overall recipe of arriving at a good place, I don’t see any cookie-cutter way of performing this assessment; it was a kind of hunt-and-punch discussion. In addition to trying to understand their skill sets, I asked them a great deal about their attitudes, preferences, fears, personal philosophies, appetite for risk, etc.
Based on this, I presented about a dozen ideas, they presented an approximately equal number, we checked out websites, made phone calls, and really worked hard the whole day long to arrive at a conclusion.
By the time cocktail hour rolled around, we had narrowed the list down to just a couple that require further research and due diligence. Fortunately, they’re both really talented, likeable people, and I have every confidence they’ll choose wisely and ultimately do well.
At the very least, I feel I made two new friends. Not bad for a day’s work.
A reader asks for advice re: insurance companies’ treatment of computerized electricity systems (CES).
Craig, Can you help me find a way to get insurance companies to give policy discounts for the new CES panel that is on the market? It has built in spark/arc suppression, lightning suppression, removes the need for power strips, etc. If the insurance agencies would look at this in the same way as they do fire sprinklers, etc. we could put a lot of people to work retrofitting both commercial and residential buildings. The insurance savings (especially on the commercial side) would pay for the retrofit of the panels in a matter of months in most cases. Then we have built in savings on insurance and probably 20% automatic reduction in the energy savings. If you haven’t looked at these panels yet, check them out at www.c-e-systems.com. They are incredible and will be the next wave in our government mandates for energy monitoring and management.
I’m afraid I can’t be of direct help, other than to let others know about it.
But you bring up a point that has implications far beyond CES, i.e., the way in which a great number of eco-friendly systems in our homes are treated by insurance companies – and by banks as well. Right now, the solar array on your roof is not part of your mortgage; it’s treated as if it were an appliance like a refrigerator or dishwasher. But here’s a permanent system, like plumbing or central heating, with a guaranteed life of 25 years, that’s performing a useful task (lowering your electric bill) 365 days a year.
I see a day coming in which such systems are included in the value of your property, and rolled up in your mortgage.
Thanks for writing, and sorry I can’t be of more specific help.
Frequent commenter and really smart fellow Alan Belcher writes:
Craig, as a suggestion, it would be wise/the right thing/common sense to start using the term “clean energy” in place of “renewable energy.” I say this in view of the consequences of a senseless report that claimed that biofuels (wood chip, etc.) release considerably more CO2 into the atmosphere than coal used as a fuel.
This has caused some very negative side effects regarding some wood-chip fired electric generating facilities throughout the U.S. I have heard instances of permits being withdrawn and the like.
Just a thought. All the best with your new book!
To which I replied:
Thanks, Alan; excellent point. I would think, however, that “clean energy” carries with it its own set of issues as a piece of terminology. For example, is there such a thing as “clean coal?” And what about nuclear? No one’s saying that it’s renewable, but the industry is claiming that it’s clean. And they’ve got a point, if by that you mean, “doesn’t emit greenhouse gases.” Of course, if you mean “safe” or “hazard-free” (or any of the other things that any sensible person would associate with the word “clean”) that’s another issue.
In any case, thanks for the good wishes, and please stay in touch.
We need to come up with a very powerful argument for renewable energy that eliminates need for ALL burnable fuels.
My wife and I have asthma. She’s had it all her life. I’ve only developed it in my late 70s. Fortunately, mine is not very severe.
I only have to take a puff of Flovent in the evening and a puff of Albuterol when I go for a walk. Mary uses these aerosols more frequently.
We live in Seattle where there are enough hills that a short walk is aerobic. I don’t run very often at age 80, but Mary still runs at age 66.
We have a cabin in San Juan County, WA, whose official heat source is wood burning, but we no longer use the wood stove. Wood smoke is very hard on the lungs. Our 32’x20′ cabin is so well insulated it can be heated electrically by means of one or two electric plug-in 1500 watt radiators. I installed three electrical outlets with thermostats when I wired the cabin, which we purchased without electric power. It was originally 16’x20′, and I doubled it’s size, starting in 2002. Here’s a photo showing the wood smoke and Mary on the new front deck before I added the guardrail and new windows in the old front section. By the way there are many residents of Washington state whose only heat source is wood burning. That leads to some days when wood burning is limited to only those people because of the air pollution. We have a fire place in our Seattle living room, but we no longer use it. We would like to put in solar panels on our Seattle house and maybe this one, but it’s currently beyond our means until we sell one of these houses. Before the ‘great recession’ we could have sold the island property for maybe $300,000. There are 2 acres total, consisting of two 1/2 acre lots and half of a 2 acre lot which we share with neighbors and is fully forested. We have a nice view of water and Lopez island from the front. We’ll have water front after global warming takes over and floods the lot in front of us. The roof on that lot is about 40 feet below our deck. Because of the 2×4 construction, we insulated the cabin with styrofoam, which is R-5 per inch, so the walls are R17.5 and the floors and roofs are R-30. I replaced the old single pane windows with large insulated glass windows, so we have nice views all around. Unfortunately, birds occasionally hit the glass and are stunned. I don’t know if their lives are shortened as a result. We sometimes put markings on the glass to prevent that.
…continued from earlier
Shifts Within the Industry
Pew’s researchers say that because scientific research, public policy, market forces, the economic recovery and new technology drive innovation and competition, leading sectors in today’s clean energy economy may not be so tomorrow.
The researchers for the Pew report broke the clean energy economy into five broad categories:
1) Clean Energy (such as those directly working in solar or wind, like plant operators, installers, manufacturers, and technicians.)
2) Energy Efficiency (such as Leed certified professionals.)
3) Environmentally Friendly Production (such as electric car makers)
4) Conservation and (more…)
