tagged w/ Clean Energy
-
This is why activism matters.
Six months ago, the Obama Administration was set to approve one of the single most environmentally disastrous fossil fuel projects imaginable.
Today, it's dead.
The Keystone XL pipeline - designed to bring filthy tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas so that oil companies can profit by selling the oil overseas - was dealt a severe setback Wednesday when President Obama said no to an election year blackmail threat by the American Petroleum Institute and its lackeys in Congress.
But President Obama didn't reject Keystone XL because he wanted to. Or because he thought it was the right thing to do. Or because he thought it would help his reelection campaign. He rejected it because you made him do it.
It's a victory for activists. But because the President rejected the pipeline on a narrow technicality,1 in no way has he set down a clear marker against the pipeline or the carbon bomb that burning Canadian tar sands oil in China represents.
We want to thank the many groups and thousands of activists, who, following the inspiring call of Bill McKibben, joined us in putting massive public pressure on the President. In fact, CREDO waged the single largest activism campaign in our history.2
It was this pressure that forced President Obama to initially delay the decision in November. And it was this pressure, combined with the Republicans' overzealous and irresponsible demand of a 60-day deadline that forced him to reject the pipeline permit.
Our pressure overcame the lies and propaganda of Republicans and oil giants, and their threats of massive political consequences if he didn't approve it.
Rejecting this pipeline was the right thing to do. But by rejecting it purely on a technicality, there are many things President Obama did not do:
•He did not close the door to this pipeline once and for all. In fact, he specifically opened the door to the southern portion of Keystone XL, which would allow this oil to be exported overseas -- the real reason TransCanada wanted Keystone XL in the first place.
•He did not explain the imperative of stopping not just this project, but others that will expedite disastrous warming. Just the opposite -- he touted the need to expand oil and gas drilling and made no mention of clean energy.
•He did not refute the lies of Republicans and polluters, whose biggest "jobs plan" is a foreign oil pipeline whose chief purpose is to export oil overseas.
The time to lead us away from dirty fuels and prevent escalating global catastrophes from climate change is here. And President Obama still can.
Tell President Obama: It's time to lead on climate. Make the case in your State of the Union Address.
Until President Obama makes a clear and compelling case to the American people for sweeping action to reduce our dependence on any and all fossil fuels, the pace of our transition will remain slower than what is required to stem the onrushing danger of climate pollution.
Until he refutes the false choice presented by Big Oil and Republicans -- that we must choose between a clean energy future and a stable economy - he empowers and remains vulnerable to their attacks.
Until he shows his commitment to clean energy over dirty fossil fuels, the energy of progressive activists will be spent fighting individual bad decisions, instead of pushing to support needed progressive policies.
And ultimately, until President Obama takes the opportunity for a true moment of leadership that publicly raises the stakes on the fight to stabilize our climate, the State of our Union will remain deeply clouded.
More at the linkThis is why activism matters.
Six months ago, the Obama Administration was set to... more
-
-
The International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for renewable energy. The agency has embraced the need for more clean electricity and fuels to address climate change and peak oil, but its outlook for the future is usually far more conservative than how reality plays out.
So when an official at the IEA says we could get up to one third of our global energy supply from solar photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, and solar hot water by 2060, that’s a fairly big piece of news. But even that projection may be conservative.
Speaking to Bloomberg News, the head of IEA’s renewable energy unit explained said he thought the target is feasible:
“The strength of solar is the incredible variety and flexibility of applications, from small scale to big scale,” Paolo Frankl, the agency’s head of renewable energy, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Economic activity will shift toward the sunnier zones around the equator by 2050, making solar energy a viable power source for most of the global economy, the report said. Those regions will be home to almost 80 percent of the human race by the middle of the century, compared with about 70 percent today, and their energy needs will be higher as living standards in countries such as Brazil and India approach those of the U.S. and Europe.
The IEA is clearly responding to the fast-changing world of solar energy. It has released a new publication, Solar Energy Perspectives, that mirrors one of its flagship research products, Energy Technology Perspectives.
But in its recent World Energy Outlook, IEA barely gave solar much attention. The organization predicted fairly modest growth in the solar PV and CSP sector through 2035, with a projection that it would only make up 4.5% of electricity supply.
While solar only makes up a fraction of the global electricity supply today, the downward cost curve of technologies is pushing it toward a breaking point. By sometime in 2012, the installed cost of a crystalline-silicon solar PV system over 1 MW in the U.S. could dip to around $2.50 a watt. At around 2$ a watt we could cost-competitively meet around 30% of global electricity supply, says solar expert and Carbon War Room CEO Jigar Shah.
Shah believes solar can reach a 5% penetration level in the U.S. by 2020, with cost reductions coming mostly from innovations in hardware and installation, not dramatic improvements in the lab.
While the IEA is far less ambitious in its projections, the agency seems to agree that a “systems-based approach” to manufacturing and installation will be the key driver to reaching high penetration levels of different solar technologies. And rather than focus on specific subsidies for solar in the long-term, IEA says the most important incentive will be a price on carbon.
Solar is clearly proving itself without a price on carbon. With an effective pricing regime in place, a 30% penetration would almost certainly be low.
More at the linkThe International Energy Agency is notoriously conservative on projections for... more
-
-
Now we have to consider something else, which when you do a comparison on the basis of single technologies, you are doing something wrong because this does not take into account the volatility of prices, especially fuel prices. This is the level of risk you have when you build comparison systems. In fact, It is my belief that when we talk about renewables, we should do so from the perspective of the portfolio theory that is widely used in finance, where you have some assets that have high risk and high return and others that have lower risk and therefore lower returns. Renewables are very low risk.Now we have to consider something else, which when you do a comparison on the basis of... more
-
-
by Jake Richardson
Germany has seized upon renewable energy development as a way of retreating from power sources such a nuclear and coal. Their strategy is not only better for the environment, it is good economics as it is making them more energy independent and is creating jobs for German workers.
“With the decision to abandon nuclear power earlier this year, it was clear that the road ahead would be challenging. But Germany is in a very promising position to be the first industrialized country to rely entirely on renewable energy”, said Tobias Homann an energy expert. (Source: Scandoil.com)
So where are the billions coming from for all these renewable energy projects? The German Development Bank (Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau) is funding not just a handful of clean energy projects, but a nationwide approach to changing a fundamental aspect of their society. Germany is now a world leader, or the leader in renewable energy around the world, due in no small part to the role played by its federal government. There are problems of course; it would be very unrealistic to believe such a large-scale shift would happen without any challenges or struggle, but how often can a whole nation mobilize, cooperate and become effective in making positive changes with benefits for both the short-term and long-term? Sadly, war is often the example of such society-wide cooperation, both socially and technologically......... http://www.thivest.com/?page=26by Jake Richardson
Germany has seized upon renewable energy development as a way... more
-
-
Australia's carbon tax is set to become law after the lower house of Parliament passed the government's historic but controversial set of bills to establish the world's most broadly based carbon pricing scheme.
Against last-minute efforts by the opposition to delay the passage of the bills and 11th-hour pleas for amendments by some business groups, the government passed its 18 pieces of legislation by a vote of 74 to 72 just before 10am.
The vote in the lower house, which was applauded by Labor MPs and spectators in the public gallery, was a crucial test for the government, given its wafer-thin majority. The bills will now go the Senate for debate but will pass comfortably with help from the Greens, probably next month.
After the vote, Prime Minister Julia Gillard embraced Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who had the difficult job of steering the policy, and even exchanged a peck on the cheek with Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd, whose reported ambitions to retake the leadership are proving a headache for the Prime Minister.
The passage of the bills are a crucial victory for Ms Gillard, whose popularity has fallen steadily since last year.
Under the legislation, about 500 of the biggest carbon-emitting companies in Australia will pay a price for each tonne of carbon. Most of the biggest emitters are electricity generating firms, mining companies and heavy industry manufacturers.
To compensate households, the government is cutting income taxes and boosting payments such as pensions and other benefits, as well as offering various lump sum payments.
The average household is expected to pay about $9.90 a week in extra living costs, including $3.30 on electricity.
However this will be offset by an estimated $10.10 in extra benefits and tax breaks. The Australian scheme will cover about 60 per cent of Australia's emissions, making it the most broad-based in the world.
Shortly before the vote, Mr Combet told ABC Radio that today was the culmination of a long and often gruelling debate.
"Look, it's been a very bruising political argument, that's quite right," he said. "If you fast forward 12 months' time and the legislation is through, the carbon price, emissions trading scheme, is in place and the economy is managing to deal with the reform, the cost impacts are modest as we have been saying, we'll have applied tax cuts and increases in the pensions and family tax benefits, nine out of 10 households receiving some assistance to adjust with this reform."
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has vowed to repeal the legislation if he becomes prime minister, though the government has insisted he will not be able to manage that.
The bills were passed with help from crossbench MPs Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Andrew Wilkie, as well as Greens MP Adam Bandt.
The lower house also passed the government's Steel Transformation Plan, which will deliver $300 million in assistance to steel makers who are considered especially vulnerable to international trade.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-bill-passes-20111012-1ljtf.html#ixzz1aa3B5sMq
More at the linkAustralia's carbon tax is set to become law after the lower house of Parliament... more
-
-
OTTAWA (September 7, 2011) - Nine distinguished recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize have written to President Obama, urging him to reject the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, saying his decision offers "a critical moment" to make good on his pledge to create a clean energy economy.
"We urge you to say no" to the pipeline and "turn your attention back to supporting renewable sources of energy and clean transportation solutions," says the letter (Download PDF), sent today. "This will be your legacy to Americans and the global community: energy that sustains the lives and livelihoods of future generations." Read the full text of the letter below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter was signed by nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates: Mairead Maguire and Betty Williams of Ireland, who shared the prize in 1976, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina (1980), Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa (1984), His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1989), Rigoberta Menchú Tum of Guatemala (1992), José Ramos-Horta of East Timor (1996), Jody Williams of the United States (1997), and Shirin Ebadi of Iran (2003).
The Keystone XL, proposed by TransCanada Pipelines of Calgary, would carry dirty, toxic and corrosive oil from the tar sands of Alberta through six states in the American heartland to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. The Obama Administration has said it will decide by the end of the year whether to permit the pipeline, after the State Department determines whether it is in the national interest.
Opposition to the pipeline has surged in recent weeks as more than 1,250 people were arrested in 14 days of sit-ins at the White House - perhaps the largest wave of civil disobedience ever for an environmental cause in the U.S. More protests are being organized for September 26 in Ottawa and the first week of October in Washington.
"In asking you to make this decision," the Nobel Laureates wrote to Obama, "we recognize the thousands of Americans who risked arrest to protest in front of the White House between August 20th and September 3rd. These brave individuals have spoken movingly about experiencing the power of nonviolence in that time. They represent millions of people whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by construction and operation of the pipeline in Alberta, Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas."
The Laureates noted the risk of a pipeline spill contaminating the Ogallala Aquifer, the main source of fresh water for the Great Plains. Concern for the fragile Nebraska Sandhills, which lie above the aquifer, has led Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman to call for rejection of the pipeline in its current route. TransCanada's existing Keystone I pipeline, which would connect to the XL, has leaked 14 times in its first year of operation.
The letter also called attention to tar sands oil as one of the dirtiest energy sources on Earth. If fully developed, the Alberta tar sands would be the second largest source of global warming gases in the world, which the Laureates said "will not only hurt people in the US--but will also endanger the entire planet."
The letter was released today by the Nobel Women's Initiative, an Ottawa-based nonprofit founded in 2003 by six of the only 12 women ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Read the full text of the letter at the linkOTTAWA (September 7, 2011) - Nine distinguished recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize... more
-
-
We just got some important evidence that this protest is working and that we’re breaking through to the mainstream media and the White House.
This morning, President Obama’s press secretary, Jake Carney, was questioned by reporters on Air Force One about our protest happening outside the White House. We’ve been trying to break through to the White House press corps for the last few days. Now, we know that we’ve struck a nerve.
Here’s the transcript from Air Force One:
Q: Also, anything on these protests outside the White House on this pipeline? Has the President decided against TransCanada’s permit for the pipeline? It’s the tar sands pipeline. There have been a lot of arrests outside the White House about it.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything new on that. I believe the State Department has — that’s under the purview of the State Department presently, but I don’t have anything new on that.
Q: Is the President aware of the protests?
MR. CARNEY: I haven’t talked to him about it.
Now, here’s the thing: while it’s great to see the press corps pushing the Administration to recognize our demonstration, the fact that Carney hasn’t yet briefed the President on the protest and the pipeline is a worrying sign about how out of touch this administration is on this issue.
“Just in the last two days everyone from the president’s chief climate scientist to an 84-year-old grandmother was arrested on his front doorstep,” said environmental author Bill McKibben, who is spearheading the White House protest. “This is the largest civil disobedience action in the environmental movement in a generation, and if they really aren’t even discussing it with the president, that signals a deep disrespect for their supporters, especially young people who have demonstrated that the environment is a top priority.”
We’re going to be pushing Carney and the Administration to make sure President Obama is hearing directly from people across the country who are here in DC risking arrest, and the many hundreds of thousands more that support this cause.
more at the link
______________
That means either one of two things. He really hasn't told him because they already know what they are going to do and could really care less about this. Or this was just a deflection because he couldn't reveal anything more. Either way though, at least he didn't ask, what protest? He knew what was implied and that means they do know. Everyday more and more people are finding out about this and the toxic legacy it is bringing to our planet. And more and more people are standing up to say NO to this toxic carbon timebomb.
And that is because this is getting out through social media, the Internet and primarily because of the bravery and conviction of those who sit and stand in front of the White House. All of them. Some who I am sure thought long and hard of the residual effects this could have on their lives. And I thank them, because they also managed to do something I have wanted to see for a long time. They managed to bring the entire environmental movement together. I have always thought that we have not been as successful in getting this message out as we could be because we were too fragmented. Each organization with their own goals competing against each other rather then joining together for a common cause.
This now is the cause. Standing up at last for health, clean air and water, sustainability, climate balance, climate justice and the beginning of a time when our children will be able to look at us and say thank you for caring about the world they inherit from us.
This is what it is all about and President Obama, you know it too and you know what you need to do.
Keystone XL- NO!We just got some important evidence that this protest is working and that we’re... more
-
-
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a clean energy revolution to help transform the global economy and put the world on a cleaner, safer, more equitable path.Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a clean energy revolution to help... more
-
-
A star is born. And, less than a second later, it dies. On a drab science park just outside the Oxfordshire village of Culham, some of the world's leading physicists stare at a monitor to review a video of their wondrous, yet fleeting, creation.
"Not too bad. That was quite a clean one," observes starmaker-in-chief Professor Steve Cowley. Just a few metres away from his control room, a "mini star" not much larger than a family car has just burned, momentarily bright, at temperatures approaching 23 million degrees centigrade inside a 70-tonne steel vessel.
Cowley sips his coffee. "OK, when do we go again?"
Last year, when asked to name the most pressing scientific challenge facing humanity, Professors Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox both gave the same answer: producing electricity from fusion energy. The prize, they said, is enormous: a near-limitless, pollution-free, cheap source of energy that would power human development for many centuries to come. Cox is so passionate about the urgent need for fusion power that he stated that it should be scientists such as Cowley who are revered in our culture – not footballers or pop stars – because they are "literally going to save the world". It is a "moral duty" to commercialise this technology as fast as possible, he said. Without it, our species will be in "very deep trouble indeed" by the end of this century.
Read the full article at the linkA star is born. And, less than a second later, it dies. On a drab science park just... more
-
-
pdy
-
added this
-
6 months ago
- |
-
Jack W. Plunkett, CEO of the Houston (Texas)-based Plunkett Research Ltd., suggests the future of energy will likely be a contest between renewable energy and shale oil. But, he admits, in many countries the debate over shale and its costs and benefits risks, continues. http://bit.ly/pCaZAXJack W. Plunkett, CEO of the Houston (Texas)-based Plunkett Research Ltd., suggests... more
-
-
-
Photovoltaic cells that convert heat, not sunlight, to electricity may turn out to be the solution for capturing all the energy we waste through heat.
Photovoltaic cells are best known for turning sunlight into electrical power--and they're big business. But did you know that there's a type of PV cell that eats heat instead of light to make power? It could replace the Li-ion battery in your cell phone, and it may also be used to scavenge waste heat from almost anything that normally dumps it into the environment, from your TV's electronics to your car's engine (even an electrical one).
Thermal PV tech has been around ages, and works the same way as the solar variation: Incoming radiation excites the atoms in its semiconductor structure, which then push electrons out--generating current. And much as is the case for solar PV cells, the advances in the tech have all been about improving their efficiency. Scientists at MIT have recently honed this tech, pushing the efficiency up so far that thermal PV cells are now a viable alternative to all sorts of other tech. MIT's breakthrough was to add a layer of tungsten to the front of a PV cell, with a surface that's been etched on a nanoscopic scale so that when heated it emits infrared light (heat) at wavelengths precisely tuned to the best efficiency of the PV cell behind it.
Right now, MIT is building the tech into tiny silicon micro-reactors. These are tiny furnaces that burn butane to generate heat, and then extract the heat to produce electricity. If that sounds convoluted, then this will impress you: The microreactors are small enough to replace the button cell Li-ion batteries you find in devices like watches, and convert the chemical ingredients that make them tick with three times better efficiency than Li-ion can match. Better yet, when they run out of fuel you simply snap in an extra cartridge of butane to recharge them.
But because MIT's system is so very efficient, and is based on a material that's not too rare or expensive, it could be used to build fuel-less heat-scavenging units that are stuck inside all sorts of devices to recover the wasted heat energy that nearly every machine we've ever made kicks out (thanks to the lovely laws of physics). How about the hot back of your TV? Or the hot chassis of the electric motor in your Nissan Leaf? Let's get fanciful and imagine it would be possible to claw back a few milliwatts of energy from the hot shower water you simply let run down the drain.
More at the linkPhotovoltaic cells that convert heat, not sunlight, to electricity may turn out to be... more
-
-
In the desert of western Arizona, a power company proposes to build the world's tallest chimney -- a tower, 2,600 feet tall, that would be the centerpiece of a giant non-polluting power plant, making electricity from the heat of the sun.
The project has been started by an Australian company called EnviroMission, which says it hopes, by the time it is finished construction in early 2015, to provide enough electricity to power the equivalent of 200,000 homes. It would burn no fuel. Nothing quite like it has ever been tried in America before.
In fact, nothing quite like it has been tried anywhere else in the world, aside from a small test project in Spain. The finished tower would be the second-tallest structure on the planet, just a hundred feet shorter than the Burj Khalifa luxury skyscraper in Dubai. It would be twice as tall as New York's Empire State Building.
"It would be conceited to say we have the solution," said Chris Davey, the president of EnviroMission's U.S. operations in Phoenix, "but it's a reasonable energy alternative."
When one mentions solar power, most people probably think of so-called photovoltaics -- those big, flat panels that have been used to power spacecraft, but so far have been considered too expensive for large-scale commercial use. EnviroMission plans something very different.
Its design consists of a giant, round greenhouse-like structure, under which air would become trapped and get very hot -- around 160 degrees Fahrenheit.
Hot air naturally tries to rise, so it would rush toward the tall tower in the center. On the way, it would pass through any of 32 turbines, whose turning blades would run generators and create electricity. The plant would burn no fuel, emitting no greenhouse gases.
"It's a very favorable operation," said John Drum, a member of the local county board of supervisors. "It'll bring quite a few jobs to our county, and when it's done there will be 40 to 50 people to run it."
It would also draw attention to this isolated place, off state route 95 north of Quartzsite, Ariz. Supporters say the view from the top on a clear day would be stupendous.
Clean Solar Energy, Even at Night
EnviroMission says the beauty of its design is that the plant doesn't only work in blazing sunlight. All it needs is for there to be some solar heating. The company says it has checked out possible sites in Kansas, Pennsylvania and rural New Jersey -- cooler, cloudier places than Arizona. Davey says the company's calculations show the chimney would even generate power at night. The air in the canopy would be warmed by the sand beneath it, which would have absorbed excess heat during the day.
"It's incredibly benign," Davey said. "No water, no dangerously high temperatures, no 'death rays' from mirrors, very few moving parts."
More at the linkIn the desert of western Arizona, a power company proposes to build the world's... more
-
-
Only ten percent of Mozambique’s population has access to the country’s electricity grid. Without electricity, subsistence farming is less viable, students cannot study at night, and hospitals cannot store vaccines. The lack of power is a drag on Mozambique’s economic development and an obstacle to improving the well-being of its people.
But this is not another clichéd story about how the West must save Africa from poverty. Instead, it is a story about how to provide electricity, in an environmentally and economically intelligent manner, to the 85% of people in rural sub-Saharan Africa who lack it. It is a story about how to leverage efficiently local knowledge and resources. It is a story about innovation, a story from which the developed world can learn.
In 2009, Jason Morenikeji started The Clean Energy Company in Mozambique. Morenikeji’s company provides small-scale, off-grid renewable energy along Mozambique’s “wind-strong” coastline. The company focuses on the design, construction, and installation of micro wind turbines that can be tailored to fit local needs and combined with other renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaics (PV).
By manufacturing the micro-turbines locally, Morenikeji’s company creates jobs and lifts people out of poverty. This is one of many ways that independent electricity generation, particularly from renewable sources, can be crucial for addressing the challenges of socio-economic development such as education, food security, and health.
Independently-powered micro-grids can provide lighting for students to study at night. Studies have found an almost two-year difference in education levels between children in electrified households as compared to those in homes without power. A good education gives students the skills necessary to achieve stable employment and higher income.
Decentralized energy can be used to refrigerate food. This is especially important since poor food preservation can cost developing countries 25-50% of their crop-yield, reducing food security and preventing farmers from maximizing their income. According to the FAO:
“One of the major contributory factors responsible for the economic non-viability of farming areas is the farmer’s inability to handle and store food efficiently so that he can sell good quality produce when it is scarce and commands a high price.”
More at the linkOnly ten percent of Mozambique’s population has access to the country’s... more
-
-
Logistics managers attempting to optimize supply chains for sustainability and emissions reductions face a tough question: how to implement those goals without breaking the bank.
The conventional thinking is that there’s always tradeoff: A transport company can reduce its CO2 emissions along a supply chain, but at a higher investment and operating cost.
Findings released last week during a webinar sponsored by Finished Vehicle Logistics magazine suggest that in certain cases the best of both worlds is possible.
“You can reduce CO2 emissions and costs [along the supply chain] with the right approaches and if processes are executed correctly,” says Nils Lie, Vice President, Business Development, Supply Chain Management for Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics, which handles auto logistics from factories to dealers around the world. “It requires thinking in a new way,” he continues, one that adds carbon emissions to the “holy trinity” of cost, time and service quality.
Many companies have not considered examining their outbound supply chains from an emissions perspective because of the assumed high cost of doing so.
Post Continues: http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/reducing-supply-chain-emissions-costs/Logistics managers attempting to optimize supply chains for sustainability and... more
-
-
This post is part of a blogging series by economics students at the Presidio Graduate School’s MBA program. You can follow along here.
By Joey Christiano
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing is a mechanism that allows renewable energy, water conservation, and energy efficiency projects to be financed at reasonable rates. PACE works by attaching a senior lien to the property, not the installed equipment. The lien is usually repaid over the life of the installed equipment, anywhere from 5 – 20 years. Using a senior property lien has many benefits:
The senior position of the lien allows lenders to offer low interest rates because the property is collateral, not the installed equipment.
Adoption of energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations have been hampered by high up-front costs. Using PACE financing spreads the cost over the useful life of the equipment, which typically generates savings that exceed cost on an annual basis.
The lien is attached to the property, not the person. Making it easy to invest in energy efficiency or renewable energy projects even if the owner plans on selling the property.
PACE sounds great – why isn’t everyone doing it?
Residential PACE financing froze up on July 6, 2010 when the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA), released guidance advising Fannie May and Freddie Mac not to work with loans that took advantage of PACE financing because of the risk associated with senior property liens. Several groups, including the State of California, are fighting to reverse the ruling. These groups are fighting for residential PACE financing because they see it as a catalyst to reducing dependence on fossil fuels, promoting renewable energy investments, and creating green jobs.
Commercial markets were not affected
While residential PACE is at a standstill, commercial PACE was not affected by the FHFA statement because the majority of commercial real estate mortgages are not owned by Fannie May or Freddie Mac. Commercial PACE has been developing slowly over the past year due to concern that a statement from a governing body could freeze commercial PACE, but since nearly a year has passed since the FHFA statement, commercial PACE markets are starting to pick up.
A report co-authored by the Clinton Climate Initiative states that several commercial PACE programs are in development, in markets such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Ann Arbor, MI, and Washington D.C. Some programs are expected to launch as early as the second quarter of 2011.
In June 2010, prior to the FHFA ruling, Pike Research estimated that the commercial PACE market could reach $2.5 billion by 2015. That estimate seems a little high, given that as of March 23, 2011 only $9.69M had been approved for commercial PACE funding according to the Clinton Climate Initiative co-authored report referenced above.
Post Source: http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/commercial-pace-financing-drive-25-billion-energy-efficiency-investments/This post is part of a blogging series by economics students at the Presidio Graduate... more
-
-
Hello, I am a children’s author and Andy is an illustrator. We want to reach out to show kids (and adults too!) that there are great, clean ways to help power our world. We have created ‘The Power Families’, a series of beautifully written and illustrated picture books set on renewable energy farms and we need your help to kickstart it!Hello, I am a children’s author and Andy is an illustrator. We want to reach out... more
-
-
REDUCING MILITARY SPENDING ALONE WILL ELIMINATE THE LONG TERM DEFICIT.
Per the MilitaryIndustrialComplex.com, you contributed to $246,876,+ billion dollars of military contracts for the year of 2010, ALONE!. You contributed to $70,601, billion dollars of military contracts in the first three months of 2011, ALONE! And this only represents contracts reported, not all of the other military spending not related to corporate contracts! Is it any wonder we're broke now?
( A great tool for counting the money being made by corporations off of your military budget money. ): http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/2011-totals.asp
"if all we were to do was to bring the military budget back down to the Clinton-era level, that alone would essentially solve the long-term deficit problem. That alone.", states U. of Mass., at Amherst, professor Robert Pollin, in an interview with Paul Jay of theREALnews network.
"In the year 2000, it ( the military budget ) was 3 percent of GDP. And now it's 4.8 percent." " If we say the problem, again, the long-term problem, is that we project out a deficit at 5 percent of GDP, and we need to get it in the range of 2 to 3 percent, at least you could pull half of that out of the military budget, and you'd still be way beyond where the military budget was at the end of the Clinton administration.
JAY: And still be the country that spends more on weapons [crosstalk]
POLLIN: Than all the other countries of the world, yes.
JAY: --rest of the world put together, yeah."
Once we recognize that our military currently functions as a money making business for already rich corporations, creating foreign threats to our nation in order to justify military action and supporting budgets; which in turn feed the industrial war machine, we can intelligently pare it down to a level only necessary to TRULY insure our national security.
"people say, well, you can't do that, because we'd lose jobs if we cut the military. But that's also false, because the military per dollar of expenditure creates far fewer jobs than, for example, putting the money in education or putting the money in clean energy. We create more jobs. If we moved it out of the public military and just incentivized private green investors, we would create about 50 percent more jobs."
CONCLUSION? Reduce military spending and create more jobs! Just the facts, if you please!
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6649
And here is a terrific tool for keeping track of it yourself:
2010 Military-Industrial Complex Totals
Total Contracts Recorded: 3,834
Total Contracts Dollar Value: $246,876,980,742
A visual representation of Defense Spending growth and decrease by month throughout 2010.
Total Contracts Recorded by Month:
January: 168
February: 171
March: 330
April: 374
May: 272
June: 330
July: 306
August: 327
September: 704
October: 273
November: 224
December: 355
Total Contracts Dollar Value by Month:
January: $8,107,922,646
February: $11,540,170,777
March: $13,677,787,653
April: $20,284,801,491
May: $25,567,713,470
June: $22,596,147,257
July: $19,415,424,453
August: $16,792,242,962
September: $46,498,184,935
October: $9,565,043,473
November: $28,206,122,771
December: $24,625,418,854
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/2011-totals.aspREDUCING MILITARY SPENDING ALONE WILL ELIMINATE THE LONG TERM DEFICIT.
Per the... more
-
-
TELL OBAMA NUCLEAR AND GAS FRACKING IS NOT CLEAN ENERGY !!!
This letter from the Whitehouse, in response to my letter about clean and sustainable energy, reveals that even in the Japanese disaster cloud of radioactivity, now distributed worldwide, Obama considers nuclear energy to be clean!
Combined with the "massive Fracking Blowout spill in PA.", posted herein, how can anyone justify that fracking gas and nuclear energy can ever be clean? Nuclear accidents and incidents pollute FOREVER! Even now, sealed recontainment plans are being devised to resecure the Chernobyl reactor. Does anyone remember how many years ago that occurred?
Please remind Obama that nuclear, fracted gas and coal are not clean energies. And, you might indicate that if an effort equalling half of that made to prepare for war were put forth, we could be energy independent in a couple of years. It only took a couple of years to develop the atom bomb, it can't possibly take longer to perfect solar and wind power if government would commit to it.
THE WHITEHOUSE
April 22, 2011
Dear Friend:
Thank you for writing. I appreciate hearing from you, and I share the vision of millions of Americans who want to secure our Nation's energy future. We must seize this important opportunity to create new jobs and industries, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect the public health and our environment. My Administration's energy plan relies on harnessing the resources we have available, embracing a diverse energy portfolio, and becoming a global leader in developing new sources of clean energy.
I understand the impact gas prices have on families and businesses across our country, and that is why I am committed to developing our capacity for domestic energy production. My Administration is working to expand responsible oil and gas development in the United States, ensuring this is done safely and responsibly. This includes a focus on natural gas, while also building production capacity for biofuels.
In addition to increased domestic energy production, my plan calls for a reduction in demand of foreign oil. Since transportation is responsible for 70 percent of our petroleum consumption, one of the quickest and easiest ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to make transportation more efficient. That is why my Administration established groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, which will reduce consumption by 1.8 billion barrels of oil and save consumers thousands of dollars. We are also making investments in electric vehicles and the advanced batteries that power them to ensure high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks are built right here in America.
To secure our Nation's energy future, we also need to increase production of clean energy. I have set a goal that by 2035, 80 percent of our electricity will come from clean energy, including renewable sources like wind and solar power, nuclear energy, efficient natural gas, and clean coal. This goal is not about picking one energy source over another, but rather leveraging a broad range of sources and providing industry the flexibility to decide how best to increase their clean energy share. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also included over $90 billion in clean energy investments.
A 21st-century energy policy is an investment in our economy, national security, health, and environment. I encourage you to read more about my Administration's blueprint for a secure energy future here: www.WhiteHouse.gov/issues/blueprint-secure-energy-future. For more information on government grants, please visit e-center.doe.gov.
Thank you, again, for writing.
Sincerely,
Barack ObamaTELL OBAMA NUCLEAR AND GAS FRACKING IS NOT CLEAN ENERGY !!!
This letter from the... more
-
-
In 2008, Courtney Hight fell in love with Barack Obama’s message of hope and change, especially his stalwart support of renewable and alternative energy. She worked long hours as the youth vote director for his campaign in Florida.
But lately the young activist has started to feel that President Obama isn’t quite the man she fell for. During his energy security speech at Georgetown University in March, when he said oil drilling and clean coal would help power America’s energy future, Hight said she accepted what friends told her for weeks: Obama changed.
On Friday, Hight and 10,000 other young clean-energy advocates will open the third Power Shift conference at the Washington Convention Center in the District. The three-day climate summit takes place every other year.
But instead of endorsing the president’s energy policy, as in 2009, they plan to lambaste it, saying that Obama is siding with what they consider to be the dark side — big oil and coal-fired power plants. Organizers are planning a demonstration Monday with 5,000 participants outside the White House.
“When I looked at that energy security speech, it seemed like something BP wrote,” said Hight, 31, of Scottsdale, Ariz., who is co-director of Power Shift 2011. “We want to make sure the president is seeing that we’re done with this. We need them to draw a line in the sand. We need him to stand up to the polluters.”
Considering the political environment in Washington, where congressional Republicans are fighting Obama’s every step, some say Power Shift’s demands are unrealistic.
And Obama’s energy security speech wasn’t devoid of messages that Power Shift’s organizers favor. He said he wanted to cut America’s oil dependence by a third in the next decade, put a million more electric vehicles on the roads by 2015 and help Americans upgrade their homes and businesses with energy-efficient building materials that could save them tens of billions of dollars a year.
But when Obama said his administration has approved 39 new shallow-water drilling permits and an additional seven deepwater permits in recent weeks, following the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill last year in the Gulf of Mexico, it was akin to dragging his fingernails across a blackboard for his base of young environmental voters.
cont.In 2008, Courtney Hight fell in love with Barack Obama’s message of hope and... more
-
