EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Despite Senate Inaction, Clean Energy Economy Thriving
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released an energy and oil spill bill this week that has no carbon cap, no renewable energy standard, and no chance of changing the course of America's energy future. And yet, despite Senate setbacks, the clean energy economy is growing.
A new report, funded in part by the State Department, says that renewable energy use worldwide is at a "clear tipping point,"as Yes! Magazine's Brooke Jarvis writes.
That growth comes despite inaction in Washington. Around the world,
electric companies are drawing power from sources like wind and solar,
entrepreneurs are building new renewable energy generators, and
governments are pushing for renewable energy use.
Congressional inaction
Over the course of 2010, the Senate's ambitions for climate legislation have dwindled to almost nothing. A session that began with the Kerry-Boxer bill-a close-enough approximation of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act-ended with Reid's energy bill, which drops all efforts to cap carbon.
Reid's bill would hold oil companies accountable for spills by lifting a liability cap. It also includes incentives for home energy efficiency. The bill leaves out provisions that could have made a difference to America's energy future: It does not require states to tap renewables for a portion of their electricity generation, and it does not limit carbon generation in any sector of the economy.
At Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard recalls Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) tough fight to get the House measure passed, and reports that the House Speaker is still willing to push forward on this issue:
Pelosi has tried to remain positive. "This is an issue the Senate can't walk away from," Pelosi told the crowd of liberal activists at Netroots Nation last Saturday. Even if the Senate has, for now, Pelosi is optimistic. "It cannot be ignored," she tells Mother Jones. "I have confidence in the issue."
Alternative alternatives
Not everyone is mourning the death of cap-and-trade legislation. At The Nation, Charles Komanoff, an environmental economist, argues for an alternative method of tamping down carbon use and promoting alternative fuels.
"Virtually everyone who truly desires emissions reductions agrees that putting a (rising) price on carbon is essential," Komanoff writes. "But there's another, better way to do that, one that also would deliver an economic bonus to a majority of Americans."
The fee-and-dividend system Komanoff is promoting increases the price of emitting carbon, but instead of leaving it up to companies to manage costs through carbon permits-as in a cap-and-trade system-this program sends checks to consumers, who make their own choices about energy use.
Komanoff focuses on a bill drafted by Rep. John Larson (D-CT) as a good example of this type of system; Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) also have a bill floating around that relies on fee-and-dividend. It seems unlikely, but perhaps interest in fee-and-dividend will revive now that the Senate has dropped carbon cap-and-trade programs.
International implications
With all the back and forth in Washington, it's easy to forget that the decisions our Senators from South Carolina or Nevada make affect the entire world. The Senate's failure is also holding back the entire international negotiation process on curbing global carbon levels.
Inter Press Service's Eli Clifton reports: "Already, the upcoming meeting of international negotiators in Cancun, in November, is being described as an increasingly unlikely venue for the signing of an international climate agreement."
Outside the political arena, however, the world's consumers are signaling that they're ready to embrace renewable energy. Going back to Yes! Magazine, Jarvis digs into the report on global energy use:
In Europe and the U.S., renewable energy grew faster than fossil fuel energy in 2009-for the second year in a row. Sixty percent of new electricity generation in Europe and more than half of new energy in the U.S. came from renewable sources. China built more than 37 gigawatts of renewable power generation capacity, more than any other country. "If this trend continues," the report notes, "then 2010 or 2011 could be the first year that new capacity added in low-carbon power exceeds that in fossil-fuel stations."
Clean energy at home
Even in the politically backward United States, clean energy projects are humming along. In Albuquerque, for instance, scientists are working to create "solar cells that are much smaller, cheaper and more efficient than the current technology," as Public News Service reports. (They're also bendable!)
"The new technology is also less picky about needing direct sunlight without any shading," reporter Eric Mack writes. "That means it could perform better in mobile applications, such as on the exterior of a car, because orientation towards the sun would be less of a concern."
And in Iowa, a program to fund alternative energy projects has started to move. "Program manager Bill Haman says it was a slow-go at first," according to another piece from Public News Service's Tom Joseph. "But things have picked up in recent years, and the applicants are pursuing just about any alternate energy venture under the sun."
Indeed, environmentalists' last-ditch effort to get some half-useful provision into the Reid energy bill centered on a renewable energy standard that would, in theory, increase clean energy use. But as Andrew Restuccia of the Washington Independent reports, the limited standard favored in the last days of negotiation may not have pushed clean energy use to grow any faster. And stripping the standard out of the bill may not have even helped Reid: Restuccia also reports that Republicans won't vote for the bill anyway. Even some Democrats are turning away.
In other words, for now, clean energy will have to make its own way.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

33 Comments so far
Show AllThe solution is not making different things to buy and use.
it's buying and using less or nothing
iow, behavioural changes, not materialist changes
Without a computer, you wouldn't be typing so there's material you don't need, huh? Didn't mean to sound too extreme but hope you get the idea. Nothing wrong with changing material with behavior.
I do understand that technology is required to maintain our large populations in any type of standard of good health
It's the materialist concept of solutions to problems that I am railing against. Not material goods per se.
We can't buy or build our way out of everything.
If what we are doing is both harmful to the environment and spiritually unfulfilling we should stop doing it and live differently.
We need to reduce the number of people on this planet. One child per family for the next three or four generations. Empower women.
Parallax:
Yes indeed, the population diemma we face seems to get little if any attention with MSM or even with the internet posts..
I just watched A program on LINK T.V. that stated the earths population is growing by 90 million people A year.
There seems to be little dialogue about possible solutions to this problem these days.
China solved this problem virtually overnight with the only "one child" rule. I am not defending China's means or methods but only recognizing them for doing something about A problem that goes to the very core of all of our problems...
We are living A non sustainable existence in todays world and the band plays on...
Population control needs more attention and reasonable solutions and cannot be ignored...
China's "one child" rule is only enforced for public servants, anyone else in China can have as many kids as they want and many public servants have more than one child and either pay a fine or go to work in the private sector. There is a baby-boom going on in China and in Shanghai the local government is encouraging more births. I know, I am living in China at the present time.
The US Government is doing it's part in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia to reduce the worlds population!
Use less, does not mean not use at all.
Or to put it this way, saying that one should not drive a humongous truck 50 miles from suburban home to office, and then back again, does not equal to saying one should not drive at all.
Morticia, you are absolutely right - from a sustainability point of view.
I get frustrated that many people think of sustainability as some kind of an idealistic or "green" concept. NO. Sustainability simply means that something can be sustained for a period of time - preferably for the next few generations.
Sustainability and thinking about future generations is not some sentimental crap. It comes down to numbers. Of how much resources there are, and how fast certain essential resources such as freshwater and oxygen can be replenished in nature.
Overwhelming dependence on fossil fuels is dangerous and it came about only less than 200 years ago. Powering all of, or even most of, today's consumption levels with renewable energy is almost IMPOSSIBLE. Not just based on current levels of renewable energy technologies, but how much resources it would take to manufacture all the renewable energy systems.
We have to keep manufacturing renewable energy systems, and R&D must continue to increase their overall efficiencies. But it's even more important to cut down on consumption, starting with the clearly wasteful ones.
More importantly, any new capacity from renewables MUST replace existing capacity from fossil fuels. It should NOT become additional capacity.
Free market WILL NOT solve the problem in any sustainable manner. There must come a time, and very soon, when certain forms of wasteful consumption MUST be made ILLEGAL, punishable by law.
It's not just about energy
it's about living materialistic lives
it can't continue from an environmental perspective
but also, materialism is not a good life, not a fulfilling life
rejecting materialsim doesn't mean rejecting material goods, it means not fetishising them. And once that happens people won't want to have so many things.
I think people know that already, they just need to act on it.
Thank you Sarah Laskow and COMMON DREAMS ! You can't count on government to do your homework but you can count on yourself to be the change you want to be. Peace.
The day will soon come when Progressives will miss Congressional inaction on alternatives to fossil fuel.
At some point, renewable energy production will start taking a serious bite out of oil, gas, and coal profits. At that time, we can expect our mercenary Congress to pass legislation to restrict the use of such sources.
q
aa yep
harvey wasserman
This is a good piece and a sad situation. Let's just be careful the nuclear industry doesn't try to stick loan guarantees onto this bare bones bill. They're already trying to do it to the small business appropriations.....
Nice to see that the Clean Energy Market can grow without government intervention. The Free Market at its best again.
You almost made me choke on my tea! Free market?!? What free market? Oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses in America. The oil companies spent $340 million on lobbyists within the last two years to preserve the free ride . . . er . . . market that you are talking about.
You might find this article informative: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/gulf-j06.shtml
And that article doesn’t even mention huge environmental costs - the so-called "externalities", including the climate change - that the oil companies prefer to dump on you and me.
Free market - what a joke!
Thanks, Bea, for pointing out "What free market?" If we wanted at least a freer market in energy the first step is to get rid of all subsidies for oil, gas and nuclear. And then remove liability caps. Otherwise, it's all spitting in the wind.
What's going on in clean energy does represent some aspects of a free market. We wouldn't need subsidies for clean energy if we didn't subsidize the oligopolies.
Congress has a history of doing nothing about this and I can't understand why people continue to expect them to change. Any attempt to control carbon will fail--Eventually someone will suggest a breathing tax.
"Any attempt to control carbon will fail--Eventually someone will suggest a breathing tax."
Probably... but don't hold your breath. ;)
You made me spill my scalding hot coffee on my lap! Oh well, that's my fault for not being careful. Interesting article. Now I have one for you. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/03/oil-isnt-subsidized/
Free Market economics.... the only way to fly ;)
So the oil isn't subsidized after all? Who knew?
What's in your coffee, I.M. Fedup? And what are you so fed up with? Obama's socialism?
The article you posted the link to is a total waste of time. The author makes an assertion that is in no way supported by facts or logic.
And the fact is: between 2002 and 2008 the US fossil fuel subsidies amounted to roughly $72 billion. Even George Bush once said that it doesn't make sense.
For your information, renewables also receive subsidies. It's just that the fossil fuels in the US receive more than ten times more subsidies than renewables do. In any case, free market it is not.
"And what are you so fed up with? Obama's socialism?"
LOL! Actually, no. How did you get from point A to point B with that one? But I do put another "subsidized" product in my coffee. Sugar.
Try to be little bit happy today. I really mean it.
Praise for the (non-existent) free market -> right wing ideology -> confusion -> stuff in your coffee (are you sure it’s sugar?) - I wouldn’t be surprised if you were fed up with Obama’s evil “socialism”.
“Try to be little bit happy today.”- I’ll do my best and you do the same. I’d ask you where you buy your “sugar”, but I don’t use any of that stuff anyway. ;-)
Have a good day!
Like the flow chart. Still doesn't add up but hey, there you have it. If you like honey in your tea I do have a good farmer to supply you. ;)
Chinese growth over the past two years in renewable energy has been remarkable. Electric vehicle startups are sprouting up all over. Photo voltaics and wind related industries are booming. Why do I get the feeling we in North America will be left behind.?
Good news, for a change.
Good to know that folks are doing the right thing, even though Congress is not.
..and politicians/people who are incapable of leadership claim, "see, it's the marketplace at work. We don't need government."
I see some good news for China, and the usual pabulum for upper-middle-class consumerist boutique pseudoleftists like the readers of Yes! and Mother Jones.
But the reality is more sober, of course. If an alternative energy company is really lucrative, it will be bought out by the traditionalists, only to have its assets sucked out or, in a best-case scenario, to be operated in a manner that greenwashes the corporation -- rather like Seeds of Change does for M&M/Mars, or Horizon for Dean Foods. That's the American way.
The reality is much more brutal. Here in Colorado, for instance, Xcel Energy is mandated to produce a certain amount of "green" electricity from wind. So what do they do? They offer their customers the opportunity to buy wind electricity at a jacked-up rate (guess what, folks: no, it doesn't cost more than coal electricity), and they can sell the same number of megawatts' worth of wind energy many times over. Result: hoodwinked consumers, massive profits for Xcel.
Sorry, not buying the hype.
There seems to be a deliberate attempt to keep the public in the dark about international efforts to tackle man-made climate change. Either that, or it's just plain old sloppiness in reporting.
Although this article is about renewable energy capacity growth, it quotes an IPS news story:
>>Inter Press Service's Eli Clifton reports: "Already, the upcoming meeting of international negotiators in Cancun, in November, is being described as an increasingly unlikely venue for the signing of an international climate agreement."
So I checked the original IPS news story, and guess what, even the other story, focused entirely on a climate bill and international negotiations, fails to mention what this **"upcoming meeting of international negotiators"** is that is going to take place in Cancun.
This "upcoming meeting" is the 16th **annual** meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP). That is, pretty much ALL the countries of the world - the signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC).
"The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." - Wikipedia.
All international climate-related negotiations, discussions and proposals for action follow from this UN-FCCC, which was adopted in 1992. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-1) was at Berlin in 1995. The third meeting - (COP-3) took place at Kyoto where countries adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which was an agreement to achieve modest reductions based on 1990 levels by the year 2012.
The Kyoto treaty, adopted in 1997, was based on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities."
>>"The parties agreed that:
the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries;
per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs"<<
To anyone with half a brain, the above principle should make perfect sense, irrespective of the subsequent action.
The UN-FCCC itself is based on the "Precautionary Principle".
From Wikipedia:
>>"In decision making, the precautionary principle is considered when possibly dangerous, irreversible, or catastrophic events are identified, but scientific evaluation of the potential damage is not sufficiently certain. The precautionary principle implies an emphasis on the need to prevent such adverse effects.
Uncertainty is associated with each link of the causal chain of climate change. For example, future GHG emissions are uncertain, as are climate change damages. However, following the precautionary principle, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, and this is acknowledged in Article 3.3 of the UNFCCC."<<
Once again, even the cynics among us can see that there was a bit of common sense and responsibility in the 1990's, culminating in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The Rio "Earth Summit" itself was the result of a recognition of the dangerous course followed by humanity - particularly the industrialized nations. The Rio summit not only brought together the activists, scientists and governments, it also clearly energized all these groups to try and do everything possible so as to avert danger - based on the above two principles.
So, let's check the timeline once again:
Rio Earth Summit - 1992, where the UN-FCCC was adopted (which clearly shows that the danger posed by climate change was recognized internationally, YEARS before such a Convention could be adopted in 1992).
As a related body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity" was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in **1988**.
The "Conferences of the Parties" started meeting annually, starting with the COP-1 in Berlin, in 1995.
Kyoto was COP-3 in 1997, where the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.
Countries have been meeting ANNUALLY after Kyoto.
The meeting at Copenhagen (COP-15) was especially significant, because it was planned years in advance to adopt a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol (1997). But Copenhagen was pretty much a disaster on a number of counts.
The "upcoming meeting of international negotiators in Cancun" referred to in the IPS news story is COP-16.
It is clear to everyone concerned that the momentum of the 1990's has been lost, while emissions have increased, and so have the warnings from the scientists. So, unfortunately, not many are holding their breath about the outcome from Cancun.
UN-FCCC and COP: Now, is it so difficult to learn a couple of acronyms that have so much significance, considering what they are dealing with? Ok, and the Kyoto Protocol too.
Is it really all that difficult to tell people what these mean, considering all the trivia that's banged into people's heads?
Let's consider the momentum that existed in the 1990's, all the way up to 1997. Even though the denial industry (as described in George Monbiot's book "Heat") had started working around this time, it really kicked in and went all out, post-Kyoto.
The media that has consistently blacked out the timeline and has created an impression that somehow the climate change thing started in recent years is nothing short of CRIMINAL. Why is that more people know about climategate, the Himalayan glacier story, the scientists emails, etc., and almost nothing about the UN-FCCC and the Conference of the Parties to this Convention? It's because "they" want it that way.
Think about it: they can decide and control what people talk about. It's called "controlling the discourse".
I have a problem with the title of this article, as it seems to give an impression that renewable energy can take off without governmental intervention. That's simply not true right now - ANYWHERE in the world. There are incentives - both direct and indirect (cash rebates, tax exemption, higher price for renewable power paid by utility companies, as mandated by local law, etc.).
Even the picture used in the story - the installation of solar PV panels at the Wayne National Forest - is no exception. The funding was from the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ($400,000 for the installation of 59-kW of solar panels). After spending this amount, plus some additional solar panels that were installed a couple of years earlier (costing about $65,000), Wayne National Forest expects to save about $5,000 - $7,000 from their electricity bill of about $31,000 annually.
I know we should recognize and celebrate every bit of good news. But my problem is with any wrong inferences that may result, perhaps without being intended.
I am all for renewable energy systems. But there is simply no escaping the reality that conservation has to be at the top of the agenda. A near-ruthless pruning of all non-essential expenditure of energy is what is needed right now.
Of course a lot of people generate their own home power because they enjoy the empowerment and ehtics of it.
Also it is cost effective for Big Box stores to rent Photo Voltaics thereby locking in energy costs.
Some alternative energy products production rights are bought up by large corporations and then never brought to market.
As was the Troy NY developed home power fuel cells that GE purchased the franchise and never offered it to the Public.
Some say wind is competitive with coal.
And many methods to store the energies are being used already.
People who think USA's energy independence could ride on natural gas could not possibly be correct
this being refuted by the fact that currently one or more Billion dollar LPG terminals for importation are being built in California.
One of the reasons given for Google committing to a 20 year contract with NextEra Energy for 114 MW from a windfarm in Iowa is a hedge against future rate increases. Electricity produced with carbon based fuels are expected to increase dramatically as the demand for energy goes up.Wind and other renewable if anything will cost less to produce in the future. If Google is on to something here,this is indeed good news.
The Goverment, and the liar we have for President,are holding progress up once again. Had we started all of this 30 years ago, we would be totally used to our cleaner way of life.The oil companies are the only reason why we keep using dirty energy. Our President promised to change all that , of course he is a chronic liar. The rest of the modern world is decades ahead of us, even China see's the importance of this. Our guys want to get the very last drop of oil. Well we better not wait for that. The Religious freeks do not believe in science, and any fact that will prove their religion was based on ignorance, and instead of maturing as society did, they encoureage their people to stay stupid, and they do.
Every new house and building in America should have Solar panels. The Mid-west needs to put thousands of windmills up, and see how much energy they can make. We can go forward it's just going to be much slower than it would be if our President had not lied to us once again. They hide Europe from us because they don't want us to kow that in Europe everyone gets : FREE HEALTHCARE
FREE COLLEGE
5 TO 6 WEEKS PAID VACATION (for everyone)
RETIRE AT 60 FULL PENSION
Turning everything GREEN
Anyone in this Country that puts down Europe does not want you to know the truth, we suffer, and,, work longer hours and have less services and have less freedoms than any other industrialized Country. We are the least desirable place ...with the exception of how beautiful our Country is, and they used to like our people but since we started attacking innocent Countries and stealing their resources, most of the world has lost all respect for us. That is ashame, because when we were a great Country we were loved around the world. At first whe,n Obama got the job, everyone felt that things would get better , but instead we all found out he was a liar. So with Obamas love of war, we will not gain the love from the rest of our Planet until we stop murdering people anywhere, anytime we the American war machine feels like it. We are the Terrorist of the world. I wish my Goverment would all go away....they are evil, greedy people, and should all be impeached.
Oh one more thing if SARAH PALIN becomes President in 2012, well first off you can forget about any clean energy, you can count on ww3 ,and I'm leaving this Country so I can watch it go up in smoke from a safe distance.
Mr Reagan, tear down those solar panels.