China & US: Who'll rule on clean tech, green jobs?

(Photo of solar panel plant worker in China from Flickr and Bert van Dijk)

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

That seems to be our strategy with China when it comes to the renewable energy race.

China is spending as much on clean energy as it is on its military. We’re, um, a little less generous. As the Senate dithers, bowing to the interests of Big Oil, Big Coal, and a backward-looking Chamber of Commerce, China is racing ahead toward dominance in the clean energy field.

We’re just not taking it nearly as seriously as they are. They’re ramping up their economy. Ours seems to be ramping down. We’re too tied to the old fossil fuels and don’t really believe that green jobs are the future.

We are spending about 12% of our stimulus money on renewable energy (which for us is amazing). They are spending 38% of theirs. Altogether they’re investing tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy and improving their grid. By 2013 green technology is projected to be 15% of their GDP.

China expects to expand its solar generation 20,000% (no, that’s not a mistake in zeros) by 2020. We project ours to increase just 33%.

Chinese solar manufactures are flooding the American market with cheap panels, driving some companies like GE and BP Solar, to close factories here and outsource. Applied Materials is opening a research facility over there. Of the 10 largest producers of solar panels, only one is American. Even Nellis Air Force Base is using Chinese panels.

We have been dominant in wind generation, with as many jobs in that as in coal mining. At one point, not long ago, we dominated turbine manufacturing. But now we have only one company in the world’s top five.

We’ll have to put a heck of a lot more into it, to catch and pass up China when it comes to the energy of the future.

Forming partnerships
At this point we’re settling for partnerships that can make use of China’s technology and capital. When we talk about sharing technology, it’s no longer us helping them. And they have plenty of money to invest.

On President Obama’s trip to China, a partnership between the two countries was announced – to boost renewable energy, share technology on modernizing the grid, develop codes and labels for energy efficient buildings and electronic consumer products, come up with standards on electric cars, and set up a joint clean energy research facility. We will also help China with shale gas technology.

By itself, this sounds like a vague announcement of cooperation that may not go anywhere. But several other recent announcements make it real.

*China’s A-Power Energy Generation Systems is partnering with U.S. Renewable Energy, a private equity firm, to set up a wind turbine factory in the U.S. for windfarms in North and South America. The technology will come from China, the turbine parts from the U.S. An estimated 1,000 American jobs will be created.

*A subsidiary of Chinese A-Power has joined with partners in Texas to build a 600-megawatt windfarm, funded mainly by Chinese banks, though they applied for U.S. stimulus funds. The request is controversial and may not go anywhere because the turbines are made in China, providing about 2,400 jobs there, but less than 400 here.

*Chinese solar panel maker SunTech is building a North American headquarters and factory in Arkansas, chosen over Texas because of a 10% tax incentive. Initially there will be 75 jobs, eventually as many as 250.

*Duke Energy has a deal with two Chinese companies for cash, equipment and technology for two projects: one solar power development in the U.S., the other better technology for carbon capture and storage at coal-fired electric plants.

I think we can expect more such deals. China, of course, is not only about clean energy. They’re still building at least one coal plant a week. But their rapidly growing need for energy and concerns about pollution are driving an interest in renewable energy we just can’t match. Or won’t match. So we may be ceding the energy future to them like we did the car business to Japan. And for the same reasons. Protecting dirty fossil fuels and resistance to change.

(Sources: Greenwire, CNN, Huffington Post, ClimateWire)

Bay Area cities join to fight climate change

(Photo of Bay Bridge linking San Francisco and Oakland from Flickr and photographer Dikesh Joshi)

News Update: Look West, young man, for examples of pioneering work on global warming. Now three Northern California cities have joined forces to reduce their emissions by 2013. San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland have agreed to cooperate on cutting greenhouse gases, by boosting the number of hybrid and electric vehicles, diverting waste from landfills and increasing green jobs. They also plan to craft a common standard for green buildings and rooftop solar installations, decrease water consumption, provide incentives to cut the use of gasoline in transport and educate the public about climate change. The goals have been endorsed by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a coalition of 284 companies including PG&E, Apple and Google, as well as the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. (Source: ClimateWire)

Will financial crisis and bailout help or hurt in fight against global warming?

(Headline collage from Flickr and Mother Pie/Hattie Page)

Weekly Angst: The credit crisis and $800-plus billion U.S. government bailout plan will likely have an impact on spending on climate change, but will the positives outweigh the negatives? While conventional wisdom might say there’ll be little money left over to fight global warming, many see green technology as the engine that will drive future growth and revival – at home and around the world.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors last week predicted 4.2 million new green jobs by 2038, adding to the 751,000 already in existence in 2006.

And green technology in Silicon Valley is one of the few industries still growing in California, Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger noted.

The bailout
The add-on to the $700 billion bailout extended tax credits to help renewable energy, efficiency and sales of plug-in cars. While wind energy is a bit shaky, with only a 1-year extension and damage to some of its main investors – AIG, Lehman Brothers and Wachovia – the industry sees slower growth in 2010 but is still hopeful that utilities and other new investors will take a stake in the fast-growing new energy source.

Solar seems in a somewhat better position with an 8-year extension of production tax credits. The demand for solar panels reportedly still exceeds demand.

The American auto industry says it will remain on track to continue producing smaller, fuel-efficient cars and looks forward to competing for the $25B in low-interest loans from the federal government approved earlier this month.

Good signs
Other signs of hope that climate change will remain a high priority in Washington:
• The economic crisis raises the possibility of Democrats getting the 60-vote majority in the Senate they will need to pass a renewable energy standard (RES) and a cap-and-trade bill.
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says climate change remains a priority for her.
• There will be international pressure on the United States to negotiate a viable post-Kyoto treaty.
• And front-runner Barack Obama, should he become president, has touted a $150 billion renewable energy economic plan and produce 5 million jobs.

Problems
Some Republicans, however, may balk at passing a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, because they’ve always been concerned about its impact on the economy and that fear will be heightened. There are those who think such a bill might be held over till 2010, delaying action another year.

Others raise the alternative of a carbon tax, much easier to understand than another complex financial market. But worldwide carbon trading is thriving and expected to grow 80% to $116 billion by next year, thanks in large part to the Kyoto mandate for the European Union.

A major concern for a post-Kyoto agreement is that rich countries may be unwilling to come up with the money and technology for developing countries needed in order to get them to participate in curbing greenhouse gases.

UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon expressed concern last week that short-term financial emergency will eclipse the longer-term problem of global warming.

But finance ministers from around the world, at a World Bank and IMF meeting over the weekend, pledged to keep climate change on a front burner. Even bankrupt Iceland’s minister said, “We can’t afford to delay responding to climate change.”

And economists and UN leaders are creating a green New Deal. The Green Economic Initiative, spearheaded by the UN Environmental Programme, will be launched next week in London with its focus on renewable energy, other green technology and saving the world’s natural systems. Funded by the European Commission, Norway and Germany, the Initiative will – among other things – work to save forests, whose loss, they say, equals more than $2 trillion a year. The Initiative could produce hundreds of millions of jobs worldwide, according to Pavan Sukhder, chairman of Deutschbank's Global Market Center.

(Sources: Reuters, Greenwire, ClimateWire, PlanetArk, Daily Green, The Independent)

Would new green economy and renewable energy really deliver more good jobs for U.S.?

(Photo of solar panel installers from Flickr and photographer utt73/John Utter)

Weekly Angst: You hear a lot about how clean energy will bring us more jobs. But will it really do more than just replace the jobs lost as fossil fuels are phased out?

Yes, says a new report, just out from the Center for American Progress and Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

A $100 billion investment in clean energy and efficiency would result in 2 million new jobs in 2 years, whereas a similar investment in old (fossil fuel) energy will only create about 542,000 jobs, says the report. That’s a 3-to-1 difference.

Why is that? Well, green energy and efficiency are more labor intensive and less reliant on machinery and supplies, according to the report, “Green Recovery.”

The new jobs would be created in the following categories:

Retrofitting buildings: All publicly owned buildings, including schools and libraries, would be retrofitted for energy efficiency and Congress would encourage people and businesses to do likewise, using existing programs and tax credits. Any investment would be returned in 3-5 years through smaller utility bills. Jobs created would include electricians, heat and air conditioning installers, carpenters, roofers, insulation workers, truck drivers and building inspectors.

Mass transit and freight rail: While serious expansion of light rail service would take longer than two years, jobs could be created quickly by expanding service on existing bus and subway lines by subsidizing fares. Jobs would include civil engineers, track layers, electricians, welders, metal fabricators, engine assemblers, bus drivers and locomotive engineers.

Smart grid: Investment in energy grid efficiency and expansion would produce jobs over time, and pilot programs could be ramped up with more money in federal matching grants. Jobs would include computer software engineers, electrical engineers, machinists, construction laborers, operating engineers and line installers and repairers.

Renewable energy: If Congress extends investment and production tax credits for alternative energy like wind, solar and next-generation biofuels, those industries will boom here and produce thousands of jobs, including environmental engineers, steel workers, machinists, electrical equipment assemblers, truck drivers, production managers, electrical engineers, installers, chemical engineers, chemists, agricultural workers, purchasing managers and inspectors.

A stimulus to the economy
The report points out that this would be a type of stimulus package, to jump-start a flagging economy, but one that keeps on giving, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cutting energy bills.

The last economic stimulus package cost $168 billion and once people spent their checks it was over. This would cost less and produce lasting effects.

The plan is endorsed by the Sierra Club, United Steel Workers and Natural Resources Defense Council. It is similar to Barack Obama’s $150 billion 10-year plan for sustainable energy and green jobs.

Other countries, especially in Europe and Asia are pumping up their green economies and supplying most of the solar panels and wind turbines the world demands. So we have an added incentive to stoke up our green economy. If we don’t, the jobs and economic advantage will go overseas.

Join a call to action
Sept. 27 will be a National Day of Action, co-sponsored by many organizations, to call attention to the need for Green Jobs. Hundreds of events will be held across the nation to send a message to Congress to tackle the climate problem and build a green economy with job-intensive solutions like weatherizing homes, installing solar power and engineering a better mass transit system. To find an event near you, go to Green Jobs Now.
(Sources: ClimateWire, Green Recovery report)

House Dems have new energy bill, adding renewable electricity standard and tax credits

(Photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Flickr and Talk Radio News Service)

Washington Report: Rallying back after being caught off-guard on offshore drilling, Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership plans to bring a new energy package to the floor when Congress returns next week. Emphasizing renewable energy, green jobs and efficiency, the Democratic package will include some expansion of offshore drilling, because it has become so popular with the public. But most of the emphasis will be on renewables. One important element will be the oft-tried extension of renewable tax credits, due to expire the end of the year. Large wind and solar projects are at risk because of the delay in extending the credits, held up by Republicans in the Senate (with John McCain refusing to vote many times, including once when a yes vote from him would have done the trick). While the new House bill is a work in progress, it is expected to include:
• A renewable electricity standard (RES), which has passed the House but not in the Senate.
• An energy efficiency standard
• Repeal of big oil tax breaks
• Help for mass transit
• Some relaxation of the off-shore drilling ban, with safeguards
• Extension of renewable and efficiency tax credits
Republicans are already calling the bill a gimmick and say the RES (which would mandate a percentage of electricity come from renewable sources) is a deal-breaker. A vote could take place as early as Sept. 12.

And in the Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he will call for a vote on the “Gang of 10” bipartisan energy bill soon after Congress reconvenes. Over the August break, six more Senators signed on – Republicans John Warner (Va.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Dems Tim Johnson (N.D.), Ken Salazar (Colo.) and Tom Carper (Del.) Their proposal, which environmentalists says is too reliant on old fossil fuels, would:
• Allow off-shore drilling up to 50 miles off Florida in the Gulf of Mexico
• Allow the Carolinas, Georgia and Virginia to decide if they want drilling 50 miles from their shore and giving them some of the royalties.
• Repeal billions in tax breaks for oil companies to help fund renewable energy and conservation
• Set a goal to wean 85% of autos off oil-based fuels in 20 years
• Extend renewable and efficiency tax credits until 2012
• Give tax credits for extremely efficient vehicles
• Fund next-generation biofuels and loan guarantees for coal-to-liquid plants that can capture carbon dioxide.

How they differ
The Senate “Gang of 10” proposal (details still unknown) would not include a renewable energy standard (RES) or energy efficiency standard. The House proposal (also few details) would include no coal-to-liquid provision. Presumably the Senate proposal will do less for renewables than the House package and will allow more offshore drilling. Once the details are known it will be more clear what the differences are. Original sponsors of the “Gang of 10” proposal are all pro-drilling. They are Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Saxby (R-Ga.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

The White House view
A spokeswoman for President Bush said Friday he wants Congress to give him a "clean" energy bill (not to be confused with "clean energy" bill) that expands offshore drilling, removes limits on oil shale leasing and extends the renewable tax credits. Apparently his idea of a "clean" energy bill is one that doesn't have all that other stuff in it.

The urgency
If agreement isn’t reached soon, renewable tax credits will expire, putting a stop to many wind and solar projects. Also the moratorium on offshore drilling will die if it’s not renewed by Congress. But more important, going into this election season, is that the voters are worried about gas prices and want to see some action taken. Will Republicans be able to win out with their “drill now” mantra? Or will Democrats prevail with an emphasis on renewable energy and green jobs? Both claim their plans will further energy independence. The maneuvering will be interesting – and disturbing – to watch. Whatever they do won’t help gas prices and – more important – won't do as much as is needed to fight against global warming.

How you can help
Join the Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility and other groups Tuesday, Sept. 9 for National Call-in Day. Call your senators and representatives (Congressional switchboard is 212-224-3121) and tell them the emphasis should be on renewable energy, efficiency and green jobs, not offshore drilling and more fossil fuels. Also write a Letter to the Editor to that effect. Help shape the debate.

(Sources: Greenwire, E&E PM, Sierra Club)