Center for Resource Solutions Blog
A biweekly look at energy and the environment

Walk, Dance, and Dress Your Way to Renewable Energy
May 9th, 2012
“go green” by Stephen Jones

by Laurel Hilton

Kinetic Energy Harvesting. Sounds like a futuristic B-rated horror movie, or maybe a new age farm in northern California.

You’d be wrong.

We’ve made leaps and bounds with solar, wind, wave, and biomass for renewable energy development. But more and more, energy innovators are turning to the human race for the next generation of renewable energy powered solutions. The way we walk, dance, exercise, and even the way we move in our clothes will help shape the way we think about capturing, storing, and using electricity in our everyday lives.

A UK-based cleantech company has developed an energy-capturing tile, a low-carbon solution that brings kinetic energy harvesting to the streets. Designed for heavy foot traffic areas, the tiles convert kinetic energy from footsteps of pedestrians into renewable electricity. The energy can be used to help power street lighting, displays, alarms, and advertising.

Each time someone steps on the tile, a central light illuminates, helping to produce the 2.1 watts of electricity per hour the tiles can generate. It also provides self-sufficient lighting for pedestrian crossings.

The average active person walks 8,000–10,000 steps per day, which is about four to five miles over at least a few hours.  Each watt of electricity equals one hour of traditional electricity. You can see this starting to add up!

You probably haven’t seen or “used” these tiles yet. But if you were lucky enough to be on the dance floor at Bestival on the Isle of Wight in 2011 you may have experienced the tiles first hand. They’ve also been monitored for durability in a London area school corridor where 1,100 students pass through every day, generating the electricity to power lighting applications.

These innovative tiles will take center stage this summer during the London 2012 Olympics along one of the main crossing points for Olympic athletes and visitors.

Fitness centers across the country are embracing the green revolution too. Many gymnasiums have retrofitted their equipment such as stationary bikes, stair steppers and elliptical machines to capture the motion of the pedals which is then used to generate electricity. The additional power produced by avid gym-users can offset some of the gym’s energy needs.

The textile industry is another interesting example of the creative development and application of renewable energy. Scientists have been experimenting with small wires that are woven into fabrics and rely on movement, pressure, or body heat to generate energy. The concept is in the early stages of testing. It’s too soon to have conclusive results, but can you imagine charging up your mobile device by plugging it into your shirt or jacket?

Though in their infancy, all of these examples show promise for use with people all over the world. As individuals, we often feel unsure of how to contribute to the growing need for clean energy generation. These initiatives allow us to become a part of the conversation and to participate directly in making sustainably minded choices.

As our options for harnessing renewable energy become ever more creative, the possibilities are endless.

What’s next? Power-pack chewing gum, anyone?

 

Laurel Hilton is development director at CRS and named after the Mountain Laurel. She is also mother to two year-old Zinnia Bleu, named for a favorite flower. Laurel can be reached at laurel [at] resource-solutions.org.

Can Virtual Currency and Ecobadges Add Up to a Greener Planet?
May 1st, 2012

Images courtesy of IActionable

 

by Robin Quarrier

One of the promising ecotrends is the gamification of sustainability. Gamification is the process of using the feedback elements from computer games—such as scores, leaderboards, achievements, and the feeling of progression—and incorporating them into things that aren’t games. For example, typical gamification of a website would enable visitors to earn badges for “checking in” to the site and points for answering questions or providing feedback. Essentially, environmental advocates are making sustainable actions fun, rewarding, and potentially competitive. Evidently standing on the street corner with a sign that the world is about to end is not as persuasive as some had thought.

It is a very good thing that environmentalists are trying new approaches to encourage sustainable behavior, as the beating drum of factual explanations about climate change is giving many people headaches. Rather than spurring positive behavior, climate change messages often lead people to feel depressed and think that individual action is insignificant and not worth the effort.  Gamification is a way for environmentalists to reach an a broader audience and infuse otherwise mundane or onerous activities with a bit of fun.

Furthermore, people really like playing Angry Birds and Draw Something. Americans are spending an increasing amount of time connected to the internet via smart phones and engaged in online games. According to appdata.com, the game company zynga has over  60 million daily active users today, and over 280 million monthly active users.  Americans spent over $2 billion in the last quarter of 2011 on gaming content alone, leading corporations and environmentalists alike to seek opportunities in gamification for incentivizing behavior change.

 

Gamification in Action

There are many different kinds of gamification, depending on the desired action and type of game functionality employed.

For example, some simple game types make the desired action more fun. To encourage appropriate disposal of trash and recyclables, TheFunTheory, an initiative of Volkswagen, equipped a trash can with a device that senses when trash is deposited and then emits a noise similar to that of an object falling into a very deep well. During one day nearly 160 pounds of trash were collected, 90 pounds more than the normal can nearby. TheFunTheory had similar success with a glass recycling bin that sounded and flashed like an arcade. It was used by nearly a hundred people in one evening as compared to a conventional bin nearby that was used by two people.

Electric and hybrid vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, Toyota Prius, and Ford Focus EV, use real-time key figures that display fuel efficiency metrics, resulting in awareness, desire to improve fuel efficiency, and modified driving behaviors. The Nissan Leaf goes further with its “Eco Mode” software which not only keeps track of speed and power usage but also displays achievements through symbols that look like pine trees. Drivers can create online profiles and compete with other Leaf drivers.

The business software maker SAP offers corporate software users with gamified applications to track and reduce their or their organizations’ carbon footprints, like SAP Home Carbon Challenge, SAP Carbon Exploration, or Vampire Hunter. These applications frequently have interactivity with social networking sites like Facebook, so that one can show off high scores and compare achievements.

SAP employed this approach when educating their employees about sustainability. Employees move around a Monopoly-like board, answering questions about energy efficiency, recycling, and sustainable behavior. In case of a wrong answer, the computer-generated opponent “Betty Sustainability” advances.

 

Games About Climate Change

There are some games where people can try to solve climate change issues (like the sobering Fate of the World), but these are merely climate change games, not the gamification of sustainability. Some games like this aren’t intended to change behavior, and they can leave one feeling helpless and inconsequential rather than jovial and empowered.

 

Companies That Can Gamify Your Website or Application

Companies like Bunchball, Badgeville, Fanzy, Gamify, IActionable, and BigDoor offer services to help you gamify your idea or application. BigDoor offers websites of any size a way to quickly and easily create their own Gamified Rewards Program. Rewards, such as exclusive content, unlocked powers, exclusive virtual items, community status and even tangible rewards create deeper engagement with a site and rewards users for their loyalty. IActionable and CloudApps’ SuMo works on the SalesForce contact-management platform that many organizations use.

 

Bike Your Way to Badges and Virtual Glory

Thursday May 10, 2012 is the 18th annual Bike to Work Day. The organizers are employing gamification techniques to encourage participation in biking to work for the entire month of May. Riders create company teams and log miles each day. Scoring is based on miles ridden with more points awarded for miles ridden by new riders. Weekly rankings are distributed to the riders via email.

I hereby challenge you and your coworkers to try to beat CRS in the Bike to Work challenge. ;o) Let’s see who is motivated by badges, stars, and Facebook status enough to get us biking in the rain.

 

Robin Quarrier is CRS Counsel and never leaves the house without her 20-sided die. Contact her at robin [at] resource-solutions.org.

To learn more about gamification and sustainability:

The Gamification Community

enterprise-gamification.com’s sustainability page

Wikipedia’s Gamification Page

“Gamification and Sustainability: Changing Behavior with Fun,” Sustainable Brands

“Gamification driving corporate sustainability initiatives”, IT World

“Play with yourself. It’s good for the planet.”, CloudApps

“Gamification of Environment,” Gamification Wiki

“Can ‘gamification’ make your life more sustainable?”, E&E News

Crowdfunding for a New Wave of Sustainability
April 3rd, 2012

by Brendan Cook

Take a second and consider what the following things have in common:

-       A documentary on the decline of the honeybee

-       Bamboo bicycle frames

-       Mapping green sea turtle routes

-       A solar powered backpack

-       A rooftop edible garden

If you’re still stumped, these ideas are now budding projects that are currently being funded by amateur donors and investors. The method is called Crowdfunding; think of it as asking friends, family and (frequently) total strangers to give a cause that much-needed financial boost. Crowdfunding enables new projects to take off by connecting with audiences who support their idea, but these funders may not necessarily be dishing out million-dollar grants. Since sustainable ideas tend to mobilize some passionate action, a variety of projects are happening through these nontraditional means.

Many of these sustainable projects require less than $15,000 and in many cases have tens, sometimes hundreds of individual funders for their single cause. Crowdfunding has become a popular way for sustainable projects to get traction and have their stories told, ranging from a whole host of films to small-scale renewable energy systems.

The platforms not only allow for a convenient way to raise funds, but just as importantly connect with an audience and involve them in your cause, something that is difficult to do with few investors. Crowdfunding taps into that urge to give someone a leg up in the world while championing our individual beliefs. Some of the funders bank on a “reward” system, which is a way to increase the amount of money donated or payback a financier’s generosity.  A kind donor might receive a DVD of the film he’s supporting or a mention on Twitter.  For many of the people and projects, the donation is considered its own reward. Often, most are not expecting any kind of reward. In some instances, extended action in the form of volunteers, media attention, or a like-minded friend rooting for your project can develop after that $25. IndieGoGo, a broad crowdfunding site recognizes this instantly in their advice on starting up a campaign:

“Contributors fund ideas they’re passionate about and support people they trust. Introduce yourself and your background. Describe your project and why it’s important to you. Explain to contributors what you’re hoping to achieve. Keep it concise, yet personal.”

As funding becomes more focused and limited, it requires us to prioritize issues and can hinder creativity. Crowdfunding gives fresh, creative ideas a chance, as long as their creator is able to tell a story. Causes related to sustainability frequently sell themselves, but after looking around on the sites, you may be impressed by the funding results from more “challenging” ideas.

Think your concept is too technical? PetriDish, one of the more focused sites, explains that “Professional researchers use our platform to increase awareness about their work, raise money for new projects and manage relationships with private donors.” Here the money aspect is only part of the equation (although a critical one) but what these sites encourage is ongoing relationships with “donors.” Many continue to update and tell their story of success and challenges through photos, videos, blogs, and other methods.

These crowdfunding sites have caught on so quickly that federal legislation and large-scale capital investors are looking at how Crowdfunding will fit into their future plans and what guidelines will need to be set in place. In a rocky economy, sustainability-oriented startups will be looking for non-traditional ways of raising money when competition increases and funds become scarce.  These first time funders not only provide the capital, but the foundation of an audience for their projects.  What better way to tell a story than from the beginning?

Resources
IndieGoGo – http://www.indiegogo.com/
Kickstarter – http://www.kickstarter.com/
PetriDish – http://www.petridish.org/
Wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding

 

Brendan CookBrendan Cook is an analyst with Green-e Marketplace and believes many hands can make change. He can be reached at brendan [at] resource-solutions.org

In Defense of the Wrong Message
March 12th, 2012

by Todd Jones

I’ve been hearing a lot lately that we in the environmental community consistently employ the wrong messaging to advance the cause of climate change mitigation, and that we need to change tactics in order to broaden our appeal and ultimately realize the ends we seek. Recent polling, focus group, and other public opinion and consumer studies have apparently revealed that, while most people (in the U.S.) will say they support environmental protection and are generally aware of environmentally responsible options, they do not respond to words like “climate change,” nor are they moved by the list of current biophysical impacts like shrinking glaciers, loss of sea ice, extreme weather events, changes to water and food availability, shifting migration and mating patterns, spread of disease, groundwater salinization, and more. The same studies also apparently reveal that for most people no amount of information about increasing emissions, temperatures, and the number and severity of future impacts will move respondents to change their opinion or behaviors related to climate change.

After they tell me that I’m out of touch and what I care about is “boring,” the messaging consultants usually recommend tailoring messaging to “different personal values.” To define these, their studies usually break the world down into oversimplified archetypes of people and worldviews that usually consist of the elitist choir, the apathetic middle class, the callous rich, and remaining crazies, with most of the world falling into the latter three camps. The message, they say, should appeal to the audience’s existing conception of happiness or the life they want to live, which can of course have little to nothing to do with the matter of concern—the environment. The messaging should not employ guilt, fear, or too much information. And it should avoid controversial or complicated terms like “climate change.” They want us to sell climate mitigation like it’s some kind of new toaster thing that people don’t really need. Except it’s more important than that. It’s our lives. If you listen, the messaging consultants are not saying communicate the message more effectively, or be more specific. They’re saying communicate something else; change the content; make it about something other than climate change.

There’s a difference between knowing your audience and being patronizing and manipulative. Climate change is the issue I care about. That’s the substance of what I’m selling. So, it comes down to this: am I willing to sacrifice a message I believe in for one that “works?” The answer depends on two things: 1) what will a new non-climate change message in fact do—what will the actual outcomes be—and 2) can I live with it—is it a matter of principle that’s worth standing by?

What will selling mitigation as happiness, as opposed to as mitigation, produce? Will it actually lead to climate change mitigation, and give us a foot in the door with people who would otherwise be unreceptive? Or on the other hand, will this sort of message achieve something substantively different? Will the absence of climate change in the message have an effect on the outcomes? Will there be unanticipated consequences to removing climate change from discussions and activities aimed at addressing climate change? Discourse is important, as any poll, focus group administrator, or public opinion consultant knows. If we change the discourse away from “green” and “climate change,” at what point do we actually get something other than green and climate change mitigation as outcomes? And can we change the discourse without changing the outcome? Historically, the answer is no. Change the terms of the discussion and the outcomes will tend to follow—he who controls the discourse has the power. Such a deletion of the matter of concern—climate change—therefore represents not just a dilution of the message, but an appropriation of the cause by those we are meant to convince and on behalf of opponents of environmentalism.

The other part is that it matters to me that I don’t get lost in the messaging. I care about the means, not just the ends. I’m not selling toasters. I want real, lasting change. And that’s more than a marketing campaign with a limited time horizon can deliver. It comes from an informed society, not one that’s been sold climate change mitigation under the guise or in the shadow of something more appealing or comfortable. I want people to help mitigate climate change on purpose, because they’re aware of and care about the real consequences of their actions, and because climate change threatens everyone’s vision of a world in which our children can grow free and strong. That’s not moralistic; it’s empirical.

I’m not a politician or an advertising executive and I can’t talk to people like one. So here’s the truth: people are not just morons, crazies, or jerks. They’re much smarter than the messaging police and political consultants give them credit for. They’ll smell a fraud. We can’t trick people into caring, or doing, for that long. So I’m going to run on what I believe in. I deal in facts. Beware happiness.

Todd Jones is manager of Green-e Climate. He can be reached at todd [at] resource-solutions.org.

A Label of Love
February 15th, 2012
Photo copyright Flickr user Kristjanath

—by Laurel Hilton

Like many consumers, I try to buy organic, grass-fed, energy conscious, fair trade, shade grown and every other socially progressive label on the market. I value the privilege we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. to have access to these kinds of sustainability safeguards.

My buying habits usually go as far as what my family puts in their mouths―milk, eggs, beef; what they put close to themselves―organic cotton shirts, sheets, hats; or how we save fuel-carpooling and hybrid cars. But I have never given more than a fleeting thought to what we gaze at on our dining table, or inhale blissfully as we waltz by at the market―something that is especially popular this time of year―flowers.

Did you know that the majority of cut flowers we Americans so enjoy come from thousands of miles away. Columbia, South America holds sway over 70 percent of the U.S. market alone, that is a lot of flowers!

As with many of our societal concerns on importation, the flower industry has all the usual suspects: substandard labor laws, the use of pesticides and fungicides, transportation over long distances, harsh working conditions and often questionable loyalty to the thousands of employees it supports in developing countries. It is an unregulated market, but now consumer watchdogs are beginning to turn their attention to this lucrative industry.

Becoming better aware of this issue and then acting in good conscience has been my goal. Should we boycott another consumer item and refuse to purchase the lovely blooms we see at the store, amidst our gray and chilly winter backdrop, of course not. The story is actually more complicated than that.

The backbone of the flower industry is the people who work hard—from the farmers to flower assemblers to the drivers. Most of the workers (especially the farmers and assemblers) are women. Steady income from this work enables them to have autonomy and independence from fathers, husbands, and other male relatives. It empowers them to feel a sense of community and freedom, something we often take for granted in the U.S.

If we suddenly shunned store-bought flowers, we may put this workforce in a potentially worse situation. Regulators are starting to look more closely at growing and shipping practices and soon you will see certification labels on flowers in stores, much like you do on USDA labeled meat, products made with renewable energy, fair trade coffee and non-hormone treated milk.

You too can also be a conscientious consumer. Inquire at your local store about where flowers are sourced and if they have plans to support certified flowers in the future.

Last week, we celebrated Valentine’s Day and have many other flower-filled celebrations to look forward to this spring, such as Mother’s Day. Until a proper flower certification program is introduced, there is a small gesture you can embrace. When your loved one comes home with flowers for you in his or her arms, give thanks not just to your thoughtful partner, but consider offering a silent thought of gratitude to the person in a far distant land who nurtured a seedling into a beautiful bloom, packaged it and shipped it here, perfect and fragrant.

 

Laurel Hilton is development director at CRS and named after the Mountain Laurel. She is also mother to two year-old Zinnia Bleu, named for a favorite flower. Laurel can be reached at laurel [at] resource-solutions.org.

Comparing Green Building Certifications
February 6th, 2012
The San Francisco Federal Building, By Thom Mayne, Morphosis

by Maggie Fitzgerald

We’ve all seen buildings with huge metallic plaques near the door boasting an environmental performance award of some kind. But to the average person, these awards mean little when we do not know what they represent and what standards were met to achieve them. Here, I will provide you the basic facts of the major certifications so you can know just what it takes to get that shiny plaque.

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

LEED is the longest-running and one of the most recognizable certifications. Started by the U.S. Green Building Council in 1992, LEED uses a point scale to assess a building’s greenness. Based on the points achieved through the six main credit categories for evaluation (sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design) an approved building can be either simply certified, or receive a Silver, Gold, or the coveted Platinum certification level.

While LEED is an internationally recognized and respected certification, the high cost of certification is a deterrent to many builders and building owners (numbers vary, but estimates range from $2,500 to $25,000 for registration and assessment) as is the amount of paperwork involved. So why do it? Being LEED certified is a significant honor achievement that will draw attention (and perhaps esteemed higher-paying tenants) to a building. It is an expensive investment, but one that many owners feel will pay off in the long run due to improved recognition and overall cost savings from environmental efficiency, specifically energy savings.

Energy Star

Most people recognize the blue Energy Star label, which began with the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992 as a voluntary labeling program for energy-efficient products. A few years later Energy Star certification became available for new homes, and in the years since it has expanded to include commercial buildings as well. As one may gather from the initial use of the Energy Star label, the main qualification as applied to buildings is energy savings; a building must be in the top 25% for energy efficiency nationally among similar buildings in order to qualify. This energy-only based approach not only makes Energy Star unique, but also compatible with other certifications. It is not uncommon to see a building boasting both an Energy Star and a LEED certification.

Green Globes

Green Globes, a relative newcomer into the U.S. building certification market, was launched in Canada and came to the US in 2004. Green Globes rates buildings on a 1,000-point scale in the areas of energy, indoor environment, site, water, resources, emissions, and project/environmental management. In order to be qualified, a building must achieve at least 35% of a possible 1,000 points, and from there will receive a rating from one to four globes. While Green Globes has not reached the popularity and recognition that LEED and Energy Star enjoy in the US, it is becoming more popular due to its affordable price—$500 for a 5-year subscription per building.

As you can see, the major certification programs have the same goal: recognize buildings that go above and beyond to reduce their environmental impact. Though there are perks and downfalls to each, these programs deserve applause for drawing attention and bringing prestige to green buildings.

 

Maggie Fitzgerald is a volunteer with Green-e Marketplace researching green building certifications. She graduated from Santa Clara University in 2010 and can be reached at maggie [at] resource-solutions.org.

Guest Post: New Federal Report Spotlights Global Deforestation, Importance of Domestic Action
January 25th, 2012

by Anton Chiono

Forest conversion and loss hasn’t rated very high on the U.S. political agenda since federal climate legislation stalled in 2010. But that doesn’t mean deforestation—nor its climate damage—has stopped.

We’re still losing about 90,000 acres of forestland, along with its capacity to safely absorb and store greenhouse gases, every day around the world (Source: FAO). Here at home, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates more than 57 million acres of U.S. forests will be converted to other uses by 2030 (Source: USDA).

Which is why it’s encouraging to see that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a report detailing the potential of forests to combat global climate change.

Entitled Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases, the report assesses the climate role of forests and identifies the challenges facing policymakers in more fully harnessing forests in the fight against global climate change.

The report was compiled at the request of Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a co-author of the last attempt at a federal climate bill in 2010. He should be applauded for his commitment to this issue, says Pacific Forest Trust Board Secretary Andrea Tuttle, Ph.D., the former director of the California Department of Forestry. A global forest and climate consultant, Tuttle attends the negotiating sessions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as an observer for PFT.

“It’s great to see this issue back in the Congressional spotlight,” Tuttle said. “One of the bright spots in the UN climate negotiations has been the progress in setting the standards for measuring and slowing the global rate of deforestation. There’s a key role for the U.S. and other developed countries to play by incentivizing forest protection through well-designed markets for the climate benefits of forests.”

Unlike most other sectors, forests are unique in their capacity to act as either a net source of carbon sequestration OR a net source of the carbon emissions fueling climate change. When conserved and healthy, forests are a climate defense, absorbing and storing far more carbon dioxide than they emit. When cleared or degraded, forests become net emitters of greenhouse gases. Currently, forests hold about 760 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide globally—or more than 100 times all U.S. emissions in 2009. Despite the impressive magnitude of this carbon storage, however, deforestation and degradation continue to undermine global forest carbon sinks at an alarming rate. During the 1990s, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that forest loss was responsible for 20% of global GHG emissions in terms of warming impact. While this number fell to about 12% during 2000 to 2005, this decline was due to drastic increases in fossil fuel consumption—not any great reductions in deforestation.

The considerable carbon storage capacity of forests and the emissions associated with their loss make forests a central concern in addressing global climate change. In its assessment, the CBO recognizes the great potential of forests in climate change, but identifies several challenges that first must be overcome before this potential can be more fully realized. For instance, unlike many other emissions sources—where GHGs can be tracked at the end of a smokestack—quantifying emissions and sequestration from forests is much more challenging.

Generally, this requires monitoring changes in forest carbon storage from year to year, and converting gains and losses in wood volumes to GHG equivalents. However, with 95% of forest-based emissions arising from only 25 countries, most of which are developing nations in the tropics, existing forest inventory data are often inaccurate at best—or nonexistent at worst.

Further, the CBO notes that designing policies to reduce emissions through avoided deforestation can pose substantial challenges. For instance, when deforestation is halted in one location, demand for the goods that would have been produced may simply displace deforestation to another location. As a result, unless policies can find ways to prevent this demand-driven “leakage,” avoiding deforestation in one location may, in actuality, do little to reduce atmospheric GHG concentrations. Finally, even if these challenges can be overcome, governance issues in developing countries may complicate the implementation of policies to reduce forest loss.

Although attempting to address governance issues in developing nations may be challenging, the CBO notes that cultivating technical expertise, policy solutions, and strong markets for emissions reductions are all important ways in which developed nations can work toward reducing global deforestation.

California’s climate program, along with the development of other state and regional climate programs, also are important steps to addressing deforestation abroad, Tuttle notes.”Many states and provinces already offer examples of pro-climate forest policies. Certainly California is known for its programs, but forest landowners in New England, the Southeast and Northwest are also taking advantage of forest carbon protocols and markets.”

Low-density housing developments like this one in Maryland account for much of the 1.7 million acres of U.S. forestland that are converted each year.

While the challenges of reducing global deforestation may be considerable, the actions developed nations have taken to confront these issues internally are important first steps to addressing them internationally. Though deforestation in the U.S. pales in magnitude when compared to losses in the tropics, the technical expertise, markets, and policy approaches being developed here at home can have great applicability abroad. The CBO’s Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases report is an important reminder that the development of policies to address deforestation and emissions at home is a critical part of also doing so abroad.

Learn more about the Pacific Forest Trust’s work to pioneer forest and climate policy solutions here at home on their Working Forests, Winning Climate page.

You can read Andrea Tuttle’s analysis of the forest and climate progress made at international negotiations in Durban, South Africa, on the PFT blog.

This post is a re-post from the Pacific Forest Trust blog entry from January 18, 2012. Read the original here.

Anton Chiono is a policy Analyst at Pacific Forest Trust

Happy Holidays from CRS
December 16th, 2011

Happy Holidays from CRS

Guest Post: Caribbean Environmental Markets in Development
November 28th, 2011

by Ada Torres-Ramírez

The cost of electricity for most of the island nations along the arc of the Caribbean is triple what the average customer pays in the US (around 38 cents per kilowatt). Almost all of the electricity distributed comes from burning of imported fossil fuel. An oil based economy is a sad reality, in spite of the fact that there’s potential for renewable energy generation. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and ocean kinetic capacity is spread throughout the region. However, because islands are tiny, there’s not enough opportunity to have a return on investment for energy production. Since market scale is the obstacle, one way to go around it is to interconnect. The benefits that a green energy grid could have are worth the effort. In fact, a regional energy market for the Caribbean may already be brewing.

Establishing interconnection between islands through submarine cables can make investment more attractive through economies of scale. Electrical interconnection will facilitate the Caribbean Region’s economic development through access to affordable electricity and the establishment of an energy-trading industry.

Other regions have already taken bold measures to advance their infrastructure planning towards a Green Energy Grid. In the European Union, there is already a formal collaboration between regulatory agencies, transmission system operators, private entrepreneurs, and other groups that are involved in a progressive process of strategic planning. This includes zoning criteria and pre-permitting for project sites for different renewable energy sources. One of the valuable contributions of this meticulous planning process is that, in addition to enabling operational integration, it also facilitates financing for projects. As more efficient use of funding is made possible through the creation of energy markets, these markets will lower the costs of achieving renewable energy portfolio targets. The stability that a regional framework provides is a valuation criterion for investment purposes.

In the Caribbean, the business case for a similar undertaking is becoming clearer. This region’s natural assets make it an attractive tourism destination. Tourism accounts for up to 70% of Gross Domestic Product in some islands, and tourism is an energy-intensive industry. Any effort to secure access to renewable energy for the long term is welcome, as is the fact that the region will become an environmentally friendlier destination. Construction of renewable energy projects is at a very early stage. The capital investments required are huge, which makes any mechanism that will make the projects viable worth considering. Puerto Rico recently enacted its Renewable Portfolio Standard, allowing developers to sell renewable energy credits as part of their financing structure. Other Caribbean countries, like the Dominican Republic, use the Clean Development Mechanism to incentivize mitigation projects.

The establishment of a regional transmission energy grid and market for the Caribbean has many challenges. But the potential arising from it is also exciting. Notice has been taken by savvy international investors, and several projects in the Caribbean have already received funding from investors from as far away as the Middle East. The potential for wind, solar and geothermal energy is there, and the region does not intend on wasting it.

 

Ada Torres-Ramírez is the owner of BusinessWise, a Puerto Rico-based sustainable management and environmental marketing firm. She can be reached at adatorres [at] getbusinesswise.com.

Solyndra in Perspective: DOE Loan Programs and the State of Clean Energy Funding
November 14th, 2011

by Rick Umoff

Even if you don’t pay close attention to the state of renewable energy financing, you’ve likely heard of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) loan programs for renewable energy projects[i]. The DOE’s programs were made famous in 2011 by the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a California solar panel manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the DOE[ii].

The Solyndra bankruptcy has whipped up a swarm of political controversy around the DOE’s loan programs. As someone who is both interested in renewable energy development and a U.S. taxpayer, I thought it appropriate to take a closer look at these programs and get some perspective on Solyndra independent of the political commentary.

So, What Are These Programs?

The DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) is designed to fund clean energy projects that cannot otherwise get funding from the private sector[iii]. LGP loans are guaranteed by the federal government, meaning that if a loan recipient defaults, the federal government foots the bill.  The technology funded under this program must avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of greenhouse gases.  This program was first put into place by Section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and extended by amendment in section 1705 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Some examples of companies funded by this program include[iv]:

  • BrightSource Energy, Inc. (Solar Generation) – $1.6 billion
  • US Geothermal, Inc. (Geothermal Generation) – $97 million
  • Red River Environmental Products, LLC (Energy Efficiency) – $245 million

The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program[v] consists of direct loans (i.e. non-guaranteed loans) to support the development of advanced technology vehicles in the U.S. The main focus here is increased fuel efficiency. This program provides loans to car makers for the cost of re-equipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities. Some examples of companies funded by the ATVM program include[vi]:

  • Ford Motor Company – $5.907 billion
  • Nissan North America, Inc. – $1.448 billion
  • Tesla Motors – $465 million

 Where Solyndra Fits In

Solyndra was a recipient of a $535 million loan guarantee under the LGP[vii]. This means that when Solyndra failed, the federal government backed the loan and took the loss—a huge hit to the taxpayer right? Well, yes. But to put things in perspective, the entire value of the LGP and ATVM loan programs combined is $35.9 billion[viii]. This means that Solyndra’s loan was about 1.5% of the DOE’s entire loan portfolio. And, although Solyndra borrowed a large chunk of change, it is not even close to the largest projects funded by the LGP. For example, both AREVA and Georgia Power Company are nuclear projects that received $2 billion and $8.33 billion respectively[ix].

In addition, the bankruptcy of Solyndra resulted in the loss of about 1,100 jobs[x]. That is a lot of jobs to lose during tough economic times. However, the DOE claims to have created 64,776 jobs through its loan programs[xi]. In other words, Solyndra resulted in the loss of roughly 1.7% of all the jobs created thus far under the DOE loan programs.

The failure of Solyndra is disappointing and deserves inquiry. However, stepping back to view the DOE loan programs in their entirety provides valuable perspective that is often lost in the political crossfire.

Rick Umoff is a legal intern at CRS and a third-year law student at the University of San Francisco. He can be reached at rick [at] resource-solutions.org.

 

 

 

 


[i] U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, available at: http://lpo.energy.gov/

[ii]Solyndra, Solar-Panel Company Visited by Obama in 2010, Suspends Operation, available at:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/solyndra-to-file-for-bankruptcy-mulls-sale-and-licensing-deals.html

[iii] U.S. Department of Energy, Loan Program Office, available at: https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=37

[iv] The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy, available at: https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

[v] ATVM, available at: https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=43

[vi] The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy, available at: https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id.

[x] Solyndra Shuts Its Doors, 1,100 Jobs Lost, available at: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/08/31/solyndra-shutters-its-doors.html?page=all

[xi] Id.