Renewable Revolution Is Here, Says UN Report
Report sees energy mix turning greener sooner; ‘Great news’ but ’still peanuts’, says Greenpeace
A gold rush of new investment into renewable power over the past 18 months has led the United Nations to conclude that clean energy could provide almost a quarter of the world’s electricity by 2030.More than £35bn was injected into wind and solar power and biofuels in 2006, 43% more than the preceding year. Sustainable energy accounts for only 2% of the world’s total but the UN says 18% of all power plants under construction are in this sector.
The findings, outlined in the Global Trends in Sustainable Development annual review, represent a challenge to the received wisdom among energy experts that green power is likely to play only a marginal part in the energy mix until at least the second half of the century.
The International Energy Agency in Paris, which recently argued that renewables could account for barely 9% of power production by 2030, said the figures needed further examination. Greenpeace described them as “great news - if true”.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN environment programme, said in a foreword to the review that bankers and other fund managers have ignored government dithering over climate change and started to shift the whole balance of the sector by pumping money into technologies that tackle global warming.
“The increasing investments in clean energy also point to deeper change - a tipping point where sustainable energy technology is the fundamental component of the global energy system,” he explains. “Indeed, as Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment suggests, that point may already be here.”
Including money spent on company mergers and acquisitions, the total amount of cash injected into renewables last year was $100bn (£50bn), with $70.9bn on new projects. On the basis of the investment levels so far, new investment will rise to $85bn this year. Venture capital and private equity have joined in the scramble, raising their contributions by almost 70% to $8.6bn in 2006.
Nearly three quarters of the new investment is going into companies and projects located in the US and European Union but 21% was aimed at the developing world, with China and India leading the field.
“This is full-scale industrial development, not just a tweaking of the energy system, where growth is underpinned by a widening array of clean energy and climate policies at the federal state and municipal levels,” says Mr Steiner. “The challenge now for governments, energy planners and policy makers is to build off of this positive market development.”
But Greenpeace was sceptical, pointing out that global energy investment was in the region of $1 trillion a year and that BP and Shell spent 5% or less of their money on supporting renewables and 95% on oil and gas schemes. “There are lots of encouraging signs here but $100bn a year is still peanuts and while we do believe renewables hold the key to tackling climate change we are slightly sceptical that we have reached some kind of tipping point,” said Charlie Kronick, head of climate and energy campaign at Greenpeace.
There were also concerns about the 20% increase in investment in biofuels, mainly in the US, with Greenpeace pointing out that corn-based fuels of this kind could not be considered sustainable.
The UN accepts that there are “significant challenges” ahead, pointing to the way investment continues to be unevenly distributed and still almost absent from areas that desperately need it, such as sub-Saharan Africa. It is a recognition that the vast bulk of investment is driven by tax incentives and other schemes.
The wind sector attracted nearly 40% of the new money with solar on 16% and biofuels on 26% - a rise that can be largely attributed to US government interest in the sector.
The WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index, used by the UN to track publicly quoted renewables stocks, began 2006 at 220 points, ended the year at 288 and has since risen to 360 - up 64% in 16 months to April.
Does it seem like our government doesn’t like us very much.
They don’t care about the environment
They don’t care about health care
They don’t care about quality of life
They don’t care about living wages
They do seem to like killing people. Hell they’ve even gotten really good about it. Killing so effiently we can’t keep count!
If you’ve heard comments made by the souless “elite” they refer to us as cattle.
What do you do with cattle? Send them to the slaughter
Are the American people cattle on the way to the slaughter house?
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I am with Greenpeace on this one: it is mostly misleading hype. Most of the so-called renewables they are referring to are biofuels being grown with large amounts of fossil fuel inputs while crowding out food crops, leading to much higher prices that are putting poor people at increased risk for starvation.
Solar and wind account for a tiny fraction of 1% of the world’s energy supply and, even though they are growing quickly (solar might even triple by 2010), they will still be a fraction of 1% of the world’s total so long as that total keeps growing by a full 2% or so every year, as it has been for decades. Think of it this way, if you are starting with, say, a 0.1% share of the market, 100% growth in a given year gets you another another 0.1% sized slice of today’s energy pie–but the pie itself is growing by a full 2% (20 times the amount of that 0.1% gain). There is no realistic way that truly clean and renewable energy can catch up under those circumstances, even if it can maintain an incredible 100% growth rate for decades (currently solar has been growing at between 30% and 60% per year, but for the next few years it is expected to surge to 100% or so.)
The only way to quickly and significantly reduce carbon emissions due to energy use is to use less energy instead of more every year. That would allow clean energy sources to eventually make a dent in the total amount of energy produced, and it would have a direct and immediate impact on the emissions from older, dirtier sources.
We could do that by turning our focus, subsidies, investments, and hopes to conservation and efficiency technology and methods. Just in simple terms of return on investment, that would be the wiser way to go, as a dollar investment in energy savings generally has about seven times as much impact as a dollar spent on creating new energy. However, reducing demand for energy would mean that the value of oil, gas, coal, and uranium based energy sources in which powerful corporations are heavily invested and are making record profits from would be worth less. And so, they can keep doing an outstanding job of lobbying and hyping “clean” or “renewable” energy subsidies and hope for what amounts to pennies on every deadly dollar of profit earned selling dirty energy today.
Sustainable “development” is probably not the answer at all. No matter how fueled, it fails to reverse the fatal process of more and more people using and abusing more and more resources with more and more unstable and destructive technologies.
Energy to be 25% renewable/green by 2030? When accounting for the industrial growth that will take place throughout the former third world in that time, aren’t we still talking a net GROWTH in greenhouse gas output? And didn’t I just read on BBC about the joy of the nation of Ghana at the discovery of something like 500 million barrels of oil off their coast?
Rune, i’m w/you. reduction of consumption is the only way to go, drastic reduction.
but we’ll have to redefine the terms of the “economy,” and that ain’t gonna happen w/o a revolution.
www.wsws.org
Glad the UN solved the energy problem and got out a report. I was worried for a moment there. Now our true and wise leader will lead the people on to nirvana right here in America bringing peace and energy freedom to us all.
By now those hydrogen cars are ready to roll. Thank God for those State of the Union speeches pointing the way to the future.
As usual, the UN and other “big” organization don’t even see the revolution that is taking place right under their noses.
There are many small groups that see that the various governments are incapable of solving any REAL problem such as global warming, natural resource depletion, currency debasement, and over-population. They are busy setting up their own local economies, often with local or community currency, promoting local production, farmer’s markets, and other necessary aspects of a sustainable society.
As communities become more self-sufficient, they become less dependent on or beholden to large governmental and corporate structures. As more and more communities become more independent of the large governmental and corporate structures, their power over us is diminished. Remember that the governmental and corporate power structure is based on debt money which MUST increase in order to prevent financial collapse. This requires a “growth” culture with more people buying more things with borrowed money. By “opting out,” we weaken the current governmental and corporate power structure and hasten its demise.
The transition will be messy (revolutions usually are) but the communities that survive will be those that have adopted a culture of sustainability (in the true sense, not the UN sense).
Science and technology are not going to solve the world’s problems. The underlying cause is a cultural one, the way people think. As long as people think more is better and bigger is better, there is no solution since any technological fix will at best, only be temporary.
The only real solution to global warming is to change the way people think about growth. Unrestrained growth is a cancer and cancer kills. “Sustainable growth” is an oxymoron.
If you really want to do something about global warming, you need to opt out of the system that is causing the problem. Stop using credit cards and if you have to borrow money, borrow from local sources. Grow your own food or buy locally produced food. Can and preserve food, make bread (and wine). Make and/or mend clothes and furniture. Support locally owned business and boycott national chains that suck wealth from your community. Learn to play an instrument, paint, sing, act,, etc and organize cabarets or shows with local talent. Teach your children the necessity of living in balance with nature and the value of community.
Be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Let’s take all the money Bush is spending on illegal nukes and in turn purchase solar panels for every home in the US. We would have plenty of electric and probably more to spare. The extra goes to commercial buildings until they get their panels installed. Now everyone is self sufficent and driving electric cars.
Done Deal.
To Rune
Actually solar energy is growing by far with the largest percentage growth of any energy source. The power of exponential growth is so great that even if your starting point is with a very small base you can and will catch up with the other energy sources and once you equal the other energy sources you will zoom over them in no time.
As for reducing our energy consumption that is obviously necessary but as I posted on another commondreams article we absolutely must stabilize world population and slowly reduce it to between 1 and 2 billion people and then keep it at that level permanently. This will require a new economic system based on equilibrium not growth. I have no idea what that system will be but if we do not invent such an economic system all the conservation in the world will not save us, it will only slightly delay our fall.
For a very extensive analysis and many links regarding how we can ELIMINATE all fossil fuels in the next few decades see my extensive postings here
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/18/1943/
A crucial point is to break the current market deadlock with a $500 million solar cell manufacturing plant that can be built and owned by we the people.
Here I post the last part of my last post on that thread:
“But all of this is dependent on the availability of cheap solar cells. Besides what I mentioned about talking to a multibillionaire with a conscience (there are a few) there is another possibility. The current US population is a bit more than 300 million people and let’s assume that only one in three is old enough to be aware of and understand the problem (i.e be politicallyaware) so we have a 100 million pool of people. Even if half of those are unthinkingconservatives we still have a pool of 50 million people we can reach. If each one of those 50 million people put up just $10 per person we would get the $500 million needed to build that first crucial megaplant all by ourselves without the help of any multibillionaire or government or corporation.
Kind regards
hopeforthefuture”
People, especially Americans, need to slow down and smell the roses more, figuratively and physically, before they will learn to accept alternative energy resources.
I refer specifically to alternative energy vehicles which can free them from dependency upon oil. The main problem is that gas-combustion engines give them more of the speed they are addicted to and so too many of them simply laugh at slower vehicles that are powered by alternate energy.
But the reality is, if they don’t learn to slow down and emrace alternatives, their dependency on oil will lead to the destruction of the economy and the planet, along with the human race as we know it.
Kcy—says it so well with so few words.
The people are setting up independent trade and getting no help from MSM or the United Nations.
This should be the political platform of the 3rd party with an emphasis on Media Reform. You can’t sugar coat your position or you won’t get anything accomplished. People I hope are ready to hear and vote into a more realistic approach.
Debt supporting the money supply spells disaster for the remaining wild spaces and us.
How do we do a 180 in our thinking as a people? Many of us are already on the boat but the system is pulling us the other way. The media needs to take an honest look at itself and be exposed for what it is.
They need to glamorize people who are living simple and promote systems of cooperation at local levels. Sorry Paris!
Conservative loudmouths have been ridiculing conservation since the 70’s by conjuring up visions of “freezing in the dark”. So to get more people involved, let’s not talk about “reduction” of energy consumption. That’s perceived by many as a vague threat their standard of living.
Instead let’s talk to our neighbors about “eliminating waste”. Thrift is a basic conservative virtue. You can even get evangelical ministers to preach about it. Convince people that their “lifestyle” will never miss the energy that used to “go up the chimney”.
Our greatest new energy source isn’t nuclear, wind, or solar… it’s the microprocessor.
The computer chip has already conserved gigawatts of energy, in a variety of ways. Engineers are designing lighter, stronger car bodies with desktop computers. Digital controls are conserving heat, light and water in homes. Individuals are driving fewer miles because the internet lets them plan their travel more efficiently, or eliminate the need.
Microprocessors contribute to energy efficiency in everything from weather forecasting to cell phones. And we’re just getting started. We should keep going until there’s a chip in every light switch in every home.
Unfortunately - it ain’t gonna happen until the investors who own the fossil fuel infrastructure can get their money out and reinvested in new technologies.
Private capital built the electric power system and the railroads, but as soon as those industries peaked and the return on investment began to decline, Wall Street got out
and let the consumers take them over as public utilities.
I predict the same for the petroleum industry. Watch for Republican senators to start demanding bailouts, and then a government takeover of this, “vital industry, so critical to our national security”.
By the time that happens, the refineries and pipelines will be rusty, greasy wrecks because the owners have already quietly started to cut back on maintenance and modernization.
They’ll stick that cost to the taxpayer, like the railroads did with Amtrak.
Capital is moving toward renewable generation instead of conservation because they’re not finished raking in profits from fossil fuel sales and subsidies.
It’s going to take some real political courage in Congress to stand up to these robber barons. I’d like to see Bushco’s new national debt paid off by escalating taxes on fossil fuels. Let the prices rise slowly, giving new conservation industries time to ramp up production, and consumers time to adapt.
And how about a 55 mph speed limit with a 35 hour work week?
The social corollary to the Entropy Law is “Do (work) less; do less damage.” Here’s to it!
To take some huge whacks out of global warming, support small inventors as opposed to do-nothing giant corporations.
I hear credible rumors of wind power for 2.5 cents a kilowatt. Somebody or other will cut costs. If this catches on, coal has to do something else. P.S. the way to store 100 gigawatts of wind power is with hydroelectric pumped storage. It’s an old and tested technology. Look it up on Wikipedia.
The price of solar space heating and hot water is coming down. You can take this as an article of faith because I fervently believe this. However, I more specifically believe in getting more solar heating out of less glass and reducing high wind issues for concentrating reflectors. Hopefully, soon heating oil will have to do something else.
We can switch to electric cars. At 80 cents a gallon equivalent and no messing with weekly trips to the gas station, why not? I’m as cheap and lazy as anyone else. Hopefully, gasoline will have to do something else, like maybe sit worthlessly in the ground.
Now, none of this information reaches Washington D.C. D.C. is trying to sell the public clean coal, ethanol which in terms of carbon costs as much energy as it delivers, and big nuclear power subsidies which in the long run also costs as much carbon as it delivers. Car companies can always get higher gas mileage many years down the road except in backward countries like China where American companies are already forced to produce higher gas mileage vehicles, so they do.
again fools
HEMP is the only solution for the amercan farmer and for many more of our ills, one is for food, it now seems hemp seed oil has all 9 of the essentia amino acids needed by the body to make the other 22 Purdue U has the details, i will have the link on my site
www.earthpeoplefoundation.org and www.geodomehome.com this weekend, or google it
again fools
HEMP is the only solution for the american farmer and for many more of our ills, one is for food, it now seems hemp seed oil has all 9 of the essential amino acids needed by the body to make the other 22 Purdue U has the details, i will have the link on my site
www.earthpeoplefoundation.org and www.geodomehome.com this weekend, or google it
Well put KCY!