posted April 04, 2008 01:50 AM            

It's been a year since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth packed theaters and won an Oscar. And a good year it has been for the green movement. Venture capital firms poured a record $2.6 billion into clean tech startups in the first three quarters of 2007. Meanwhile, the green buzz has only grown louder. This year, green building construction starts are projected to reach $12 billion. And both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have made a greener economy a key plank in their Presidential campaigns.

It's enough to make you believe an optimistic report that estimates the green economy could produce as many as 40 million jobs and $4.53 trillion in annual revenue by 2030. To put those numbers in perspective, consider this: In 2006, according to a November report commissioned by the American Solar Energy Society (hardly a disinterested body), companies in renewable energy and energy efficiency industries accounted for 8.5 million jobs and generated $970 billion in revenues. The report based that scenario on "aggressive, sustained public policies at the federal and state level during the next two decades." (It also included growth scenarios based on current government spending levels and on a moderate increase.)

Despite the undeniable green momentum, a $4 trillion-plus U.S. green economy is far from likely—even in 22 years—because there simply is no "aggressive, sustained" federal policy. The federal government has failed to create and adequately fund the programs that would make the U.S. a world leader. And that's what the government should be trying to do, for reasons that go far beyond rising carbon levels. The U.S. risks falling way behind other countries in the development of green technologies. On its current course, this country could trade oil dependence for reliance on alternative energy products built by other nations already far ahead of it.

State and Local Leadership
"The need to reinvent, retrofit, and reboot the entire nation is the biggest economic opportunity in a generation," says Van Jones, director of the Oakland (Calif.)-based nonprofit Green for All, an organization that aims simultaneously to fight poverty and help the environment by creating green jobs for people from disadvantaged communities. But it's an opportunity that's not being seized in Washington. "We have all this work that needs to be done, and we have all these people who need work," Jones says. Moreover, he points out, many of the jobs considered "green" can't easily be outsourced: "You can't put a house that needs to be weatherized on a boat to China."

To be sure, state and local governments have made some progress getting green projects rolling at a regional level. In 2005, Gamesa Corporación Tecnológica (GCTAF.PK), a Spanish wind turbine manufacturer, opened a manufacturing plant—the first of four—in Fairless Hill, Pa., on a 20-acre site that had once been home to U.S. Steel. In a region hard hit by the decline of the steel industry, Gamesa has created more than 1,000 new jobs. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell had worked hard to woo Gamesa to his state, offering a $9.31 million in tax credits, grants, and loans.

"Gamesa was just the first. We've attracted 8 to 10 major alternative energy companies to the Commonwealth in the past three years," says Katie McGinty, secretary of the state's Environmental Protection Dept. "Clean energy has become a major growth sector for our economy."

At the local level, the Apollo Alliance, a nonprofit advocacy group, teamed up with leaders in Los Angeles to audit and retrofit hundreds of city buildings. Its backers say the Los Angeles initiative is saving the city up to $10 million in energy costs per year while at the same time establishing a Green Career Ladder Training Program to connect low-income residents to jobs created by the investment. A similar training program in the city of Oakland, developed by Jones' Green for All, was approved in the summer of 2007 but has yet to get started. [See also Switching to Green-Collar Jobs (BusinessWeek.com, 1/10/08)]

Private Equity Isn't Enough
The efforts by state and local governments and a handful of advocacy groups to stimulate green-collar jobs is only part of the story. Venture capitalists are making significant investments in the companies that will develop the technologies behind the green economy. Take San Jose (Calif.)-based Nanosolar, which has raised $75 million in funding from four venture capital firms. Nanosolar shipped its first photovoltaic panels in December, 2007, and says that the first 18 months of its capacity has already been booked for sales to Germany.

While persuading foreign companies like Gamesa to set up manufacturing operations in the U.S. is great for the national economy, homegrown companies that can become world leaders can make an even bigger impact.

Silicon Valley didn't become a global tech leader thanks to private equity alone. From the funding of the Arpanet, the granddaddy of the Internet, to research and development tax credits, the federal government helped the technology industry grow. The green economy envisioned by the ASES report will never be realized unless the government takes a similar approach. Despite condemning "America's addiction to oil" and promoting the importance of alternative energies in his State of the Union addresses, President Bush has consistently failed to follow through on his promises to fund for alternative energy research. He's generous with the green rhetoric, just not with actual greenbacks.

"Every robust energy technology has existed because of government support and tax subsidies," says Joel Makower, editor of GreenBiz.com. "But there hasn't been the appetite [in Washington] to do that for clean energies."

It's not that Washington has done nothing to promote the green economy. In June, 2007, Representative Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) introduced a Green Jobs Act that provided $125 million in funding to establish national and state job training programs to address a shortage of workers in green industries, and the measure was included in the energy bill passed in December. And then there are green jobs initiatives proposed by the Democratic Presidential hopefuls.

"A Narrow Window of Opportunity"
These efforts aren't enough. Denmark is a leader in the wind power industry, producing nearly half of the wind turbines used around the world. Japan has long been a global leader in solar power. Abu Dhabi is building a special economic zone for the advanced energy industry. The U.S. alternative energy industry doesn't just have to grow, it has to grow fast if it wants to catch today's global leaders. "It's a narrow window of opportunity," says Jerome Ringo, executive director of the Apollo Alliance. "Because other countries have moved ahead, we cannot afford to not respond."

David Nissen, director of the Program in International Energy Management and Policy at Columbia University, is optimistic that the next administration will respond. "The states and the business community are way, way ahead of [the Bush] Administration on this. But in the next administration, whether it's [John] McCain or one of the Democrats, something serious is going to happen," he predicts.

Makower, too, is hopeful. "We lead in technology patents and the entrepreneurial knowhow, so I don't think that the game is over yet," he says.

It's not over, but the federal government needs to take meaningful action, matching the bottom-up efforts of state and local governments, activists, and venture capitalists. If it doesn't, it won't just mean jobs lost. Even worse, today's dependence on foreign oil will transform into tomorrow's dependence on foreign alternative energy technologies.

Jessie Scanlon is the senior writer for Innovation & Design on BusinessWeek.com.

posted April 04, 2008 05:57 AM            

In America the tax payers are shelling enough on wars , border building in gaza etc, theres nothing left for green. America's strengths are country wide awareness compared to awareness in India only in big cities; and its gradual acceptance. Key things that makes the dollar still alive against strong competition from Euro

posted April 04, 2008 10:19 AM            

What to do, what to do? I know, let's kick off a "green revolution" and make tons of money off this global warming hoax...as Algore already has done. About $100,000,000 as of last count.

So, get out your green spray paint and paint everything green, double the price of everything..cause it's for a good cause, feel good about yourself...because you've saved the earth, oh and hire a Brinks armored car to take your cash to the bank.

In the meantime, these global warming nuts have already interfered with free markets, interfered with crop planting diversity and interfered with world market prices for food commodities.

The result is that more food production acreage is now planted with corn to make ethanol...not food for a hungry world. Wheat acreage has been converted to corn for ethanol and prices for both..corn and wheat...have skyrocketed.

The result of that is there have already been food riots in Mexico, Central and South America as the price of corn products have tripled and priced those on the margins out of one of their staples in their diets. Wheat is on it's way to the same place.

Feel good, feel very good as these dislocations of food production spreads into Africa and people starve. After all, it's in a good cause and besides, it's not the results which count, it's good intentions which count most...and what you can make people believe is the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

posted April 04, 2008 11:39 AM            

"It's been a year since Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth packed theaters and won an Oscar."

Ring any bells for you?

If not, then consider this. Ethanol IS an alternative energy source.

Consider this too. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy released/used when ethanol is burned as a fuel.

posted April 04, 2008 12:36 PM            

Perhaps we need more windmills as we see them in Netherlands.

posted April 04, 2008 01:00 PM            

Not only have I read acoustic, I've reacted to those who are pushing the idea, including so called conservatives.

From: jwhop
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:00 AM
To: "e mails" <emails@newt.org
Subject: Al Gore, man made global warming

There was a time I was solidly behind you, until today.

To appear in an Al Gore production depicting man made global warming as
destroying the earth has to be one of the most asinine things any reasonable, rational person could possibly do.

The fact you can't recognize a hoax when you see one is sufficient for
me to doubt your intellectual ability.

To give your stamp of approval to this hoaxer who has made roughly $100,000,000 from distortions of the truth, flawed crackpot science and outright lies makes me doubt your sanity.

Either way, it's enough to make me tune you out in the future.

jwhop

Subject: RE: Al Gore, man made global warming
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:29:02 -0400
From: "e mails" <emails@newt.org>
To: jwhop

Jwhop,

Thank you for your feedback.

As outlined in his 2007 book, Contract with the Earth, Newt advocates
"Green Conservatism," an innovative, market-based, common-sense approach
to protecting the environment by rewarding conservation through incentives while fostering "green" economic growth.

Newt is taking part in Al Gore's "We Can Solve It" ad campaign because
he believes that we need to work together to find solutions for mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change.

Newt continues to believe that an entrepreneurial-led and market-based
incentive approach can best solve the challenges of global climate change while avoiding costly carbon taxes, cap and trade, more government regulations, more control by bureaucracies and more
litigation.

Green Conservatism values clean air and water, land preservation, prosperity, biodiversity, the reduction of carbon gasses in the atmosphere, and solutions based upon science, innovation and technology.

Newt's argument remains that conservative principles can be the drivers for effective and accountable conservation solutions.

You can learn more at www.contractwiththeearth.com.

Sincerely,

The Newt.org Team

Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: jwhop
Subject: RE: Al Gore, man made global warming
To: "e mails" <emails@newt.org>

Your response is total BS. Al Gore is for total regulation and control over energy production and usage and the surrender of US sovereignty over US energy production and usage to the United Nations.

The whole global warming issue is a total scam, a hoax put forth by hypocrites whose own carbon footprints are monstrous compared to averages of citizens across the US.

Count me out and also count me as an opponent. An opponent of the global warming hoax, an opponent of additional regulation and control over US energy production and usage and an opponent of Newt.

For Newt to have added his voice to those like Al Gore who have adopted man made global warming as a religion with Al Gore as their Messiah means I will never consider a word Newt has to say in the future about anything as even possibly valid. I can't think of a faster or more disastrous way for Newt to have destroyed all the credibility he has built up over the years with conservatives.

jwhop
Madeira Beach, FL

posted April 04, 2008 11:26 PM            

George Bush appears to have beaten Al Gore again.

In the very same week that Gore launched a $300 million public relations campaign to convince Americans that "together we can solve the climate crisis," prominent climate alarmist Tom Wigley essentially endorsed President Bush’s approach to global warming while criticizing that of Gore’s co-Nobelist, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

In an article entitled "Dangerous Assumptions" published in Nature on April 3, Wigley writes that the technology challenge presented by the goal of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations "has been seriously underestimated by the IPCC, diverting attention from policies that could directly stimulate technological innovation."

Wigley, even though he is a lead author of the most recent IPCC report, describes that document as relying on "unrealistic" and "unachievable" CO2 emissions scenarios — even for the present decade. For the period 2000-2010, the IPCC assumes that energy and fossil fuel efficiency is increasing.

But Wigley points out that in recent years energy and fossil fuel efficiency have decreased, reversing the trend of previous decades. One reason for this phenomenon, says Wigley, is the economic transformation occurring in the world, particularly in Asia.

Whereas the IPCC assumes in its emissions scenarios that CO2 emissions in Asia are increasing by 2.6 percent to 4.8 percent annually, China’s emissions actually are increasing at a rate of 11 percent to 13 percent annually.

"Because of these dramatic changes in the global economy, it is likely that we have only just begun to experience the surge in global energy use associated with rapid development. Such trends are in stark contrast to the optimism of the near-future IPCC projections and seem unlikely to alter course soon," Wigley writes.

As a consequence, "enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations at acceptable levels," he concludes. Wigley faults the IPCC for assuming these technological advances will occur spontaneously as opposed to creating the conditions for innovation to occur.

So between George Bush and Al Gore, whose approach to the climate controversy is more consistent with Wigley’s recommendation?

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore preached to us about downsizing our lifestyles. He wants us to take colder showers, hang our clothes outside to dry, avoid driving, use less heating and air conditioning and generally reduce our standard of living.

On his public relations campaign’s Web site, Gore urges the shuttering of coal-fired power plants, which provide 50 percent of U.S. electricity needs; the adoption of so-called "clean energy technologies" such as cost-inefficient solar and wind power and hybrid cars; energy efficiency, which only would reduce energy use by marginal amounts; and government mandates for not-ready-for-prime-time taxpayer-subsidized alternative energy sources.

In the "Clean Energy Economy" section of his Web site, Gore even calls for more sidewalks and bike paths — hardly a technological innovation that will provide measurably more energy with less emissions. In contrast, President Bush since 2005 has promoted technological development in the form of the Asian-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate Change.

In this non-U.N. group, Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the United States have agreed to work together and with private-sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national air-pollution reduction and climate change in ways that promote sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction.

President Bush also may have advanced the technology ball in another, more subtle, way.

The Department of Energy recently pulled out of FutureGen, a public-private partnership to build a first-of-its-kind coal-fueled, near-zero emissions power plant. The ostensible reason for the federal pullout was the increasing cost of the $1.5 billion plant, most of which was to be borne by the government.

But it very well may be that FutureGen was sacrificed as part of a Bush administration effort to pressure Congress to take affirmative action on nuclear power, a true technological solution for concerns about atmospheric CO2. Finally, and much to his credit, President Bush (so far) has avoided the sort of futile mandatory clampdown on CO2 emissions supported by Gore but that Wigley realizes will be impossible to implement without halting vital economic growth.

You almost have to feel bad for Al Gore — being outsmarted on his own home turf by George Bush. But there still might be time for Gore to set things right.

***Just last week the U.N.’s World Food Program launched an "extraordinary emergency appeal" for donations of at least $500 million in the next four weeks to avoid rationing food aid in response to the spiraling cost of food — a problem brought about in part by Gore’s climate alarmism, which helped spur the lurch to biofuels such as corn-based ethanol.

British billionaire Richard Branson, for example, credits Gore for pushing him to make a $3 billion pledge in 2006 to replace fossil fuels with biofuels.

While campaigning in 2006 for Democratic senatorial candidate Amy Klobuchar, Gore asked, "What is so complicated about choosing fuel that comes from Minnesota farmers rather than from the Middle East?" while simultaneously asserting that Klobuchar would "provide leadership in the fight against global warming."

So, Al Gore, rather than wasting $300 million on a public relations campaign to promote an unrealistic and impractical approach to the dubious problem of manmade climate change, why not donate that money to the U.N. and help prevent real people from starving today?