Study says plastic decomposes at sea Posted on August 29th, 2009
Plastic actually decomposes in the ocean as it is exposed to rain and sun and other environmental conditions, a process which releases potentially toxic chemicals.
From the Mother Nature Network (AP News)
Cradle to Cradle Certification Posted on July 18th, 2009
McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry has a new certification program called Cradle to Cradle Certification for materials and products. The certification has four levels of achievement, similar to the LEED program for buildings: Basic, Silver, Gold, or Platinum.
A Cradle to Cradle Certified product is measured by several factors to achieve this certification. The materials to make the product are gaged by their environmental impact, sustainability, etc. as well as how utilized/re-utilized they are (aka how much recycled material goes into making them and how recyclable they are after use). The certification also tests the amount of energy used to produce the product (including its source: renewable or not), the efficiency of water use (if any) in making the product, and so forth.
The certification is meant to be a sort of United Laboratories (UL) listing for how “green” a product really is.
You know what the UL is, right? Ya, it’s that totally non-governmental agency that everyone trusts to certify that electrical products are safe for use. I’m hoping something like this Cradle to Cradle idea catches on for green before some government bureaucrat decides it’s his job to decide what’s “green” and what’s not. Probably based on criteria that has little to do with the environment and everything to do with politics…
MBDC is a Virginia-based firm, founded in 1995, that specializes in intelligent design and eco-effective solutions for manufacture. The firm’s founders, William McDonough and Michael Braungart, work to show companies how to produce products and systems that contribute to both economic and environmental prosperity.
You can find out more about Cradle to Cradle Certification by visiting the MBDC website at this link.
The On-Again, Off-Again Green Economy Part III Posted on July 15th, 2009
What It Really Is and Where (and When) It Really Thrives
This is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.
A True Public-Private Partnership in the Green Economy
Here is what I propose both sides do in order to facilitate a green economy filled with green jobs. That, ultimately, should make everyone happy: liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist, entrepreneur or politician.
First, as already mentioned, both sides should stick to what they are good at and not attempt to move over into the other’s field of expertise. In the past, government has attempted to run business and business has attempted to run taxes. Neither ever has a good result.
From government, all that is needed are permanent, set tax breaks for energy production. In fact, the tax breaks should take the following course: your business is tax free until your income (profit) reaches a specific point. At that point, your tax level kicks in and you become like any other business. Period. No conditions about what kind of energy, where it’s coming from, nothing. Whether your energy is produced through coal, burning car tires, or clean sources doesn’t matter.
Likewise, those who invest in energy investments will also receive a full tax credit for all monies invested into energy businesses who qualify for the above breaks. This means that investors will be incentivized to fund new energy projects, which in turn creates capital for those projects to begin with.
Before you start screaming that this won’t do anything to produce green energy, hear me out first. Remember, government is only good at taxation, not at deciding how to run a business.
Now for the other half of the equation: capitalists and their businesses. These incentives will have two immediate effects: new businesses in energy will have a chance to thrive and become more viable as their debt load is reduced with the elimination of their tax burden. This also means that they can more intelligently disperse their funds (invested capital) for the long-term without having “spending frenzies” to produce expenditures to avoid taxes.
At the same time, these businesses will obviously have to become profitable if they ever wish to pay off their investors or become viable for the longer term. Thus, they will (if they are sound) eventually reach a point where they no longer qualify for the tax break. Therefore, they will not be given the incentive to create their entire business model based on those tax breaks—as has happened in the past.
The third hand in this game is the consumer. Since consumers demand not only low-cost, abundant energy, but now are also demanding green energy solutions, that market will guide the new business ventures into that field. With business comes jobs, of course.
Provided those businesses do not attempt to get involved in government and the government does not attempt to get involved in those businesses, the whole system will work.
This is where the other half of human nature comes into play—especially given the now well-established corporate cronyism and insider dealing that pervades Washington from the White House down to the federal bureaucrats in various agencies. Neither is likely to be able to keep their hands off the other for very long.
This is where the rest of us enter the picture. Our job will be to once again monitor and police government as we were intended to do. When our nation was formed, the founders who set down its framework did so expecting the free people of America to be always leary of government and governmental partnerships with other entities (businesses, other governments, etc.). That’s been lost and must be regained for this plan to work.
Otherwise, we will continue to have business as usual with business and government working hand-in-hand to undermine all of the gains made by capitalism in the market.
The quest here is not to create false hopes of a new, green economy through government incentives and higher inflation due to injections of government cash into the market nor to allow business as usual to continue to be conducted.
Instead, our goal is to have government and business working together without being in bed together. Some will argue that business is only out for itself and will screw everyone in its drive to produce profits. Others will argue that government cannot properly oversee business without a strong understanding of business to guide it.
I would posit, however, that neither view is right. Private business is always out to produce profits, of course, but history has shown that when government does not interfere with business, the communities and people involved in the business are always bettered. On the other hand, when business is regulated by government and/or controlled by it, bad things are always guaranteed to happen.
It’s with regulation that the coming of business inserting itself into government and thus controlling its competition and profitability happens. Every piece of regulation or deregulation in the U.S. has come about because someone, somewhere profited by it at the expense of someone else in the free market. This is how businesses have learned to use governmental power to enforce their own monopoly.
Competition comes not from government regulation or government involvement, but from a truly free and open market wherein anyone with the gumption to enter the game can compete with everyone else already in it. Sometimes those newcomers succeed and supplant the old timers. Other times, they fail. Always, though, they create competition and drive innovation.
That is the very basis of my proposal here and the cornerstone of what makes America what it is.
The On-Again, Off-Again Green Economy, Part II Posted on July 14th, 2009
What It Really Is and Where (and When) It Really Thrives
This is Part 2 of a 3-part series. Part 1 is here and Part 3 is here.
Enter the New Green Economy
Capitalists are again at the head of the (real) new green economy. While the politicians continue to take credit, create “initiatives” towards it, and so forth, the real green economy is happening in hotbeds of market capitalism like Silicon Valley and the wilds of Wyoming, Montana, and Nevada.
The buzz word for investors in Silicon valley is “cleantech.” It’s considered by most to be the great opportunity of the 21 st century. The idea is that with the rise in fossil fuel costs and the new societal push towards renewables, those who want to be wealthy need to supply this new demand.
As with any market, there are two sides to the cleantech economy: supply and demand. The supply side of the equation in energy is the creation of it while the demand side is the use of it. With cleantech, this means a clean, renewable way to create that energy and more efficient, better ways to use it.
The supply side, of course, is the “sexy” part that we see in the news all the time. This is the windmills, the solar farms, the algae production and so forth. The demand side is the smart grid, the Energy Star appliances, and improved transportation technologies.
The Supply Side of Green Energy
While both solar (PV) and wind energy have been around for quite a while, only wind has really gained any ground in the way of efficiency and realistic market production. Wind farms are becoming the investment type of choice in wide open spaces like Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska and other plains states.
Solar, meanwhile, has a few years to go before a truly large-scale and marketable version can be utilized. This is mainly due to cost of facilities versus their output. On a smaller scale, solar is viable, but for megawatt production, solar has a long row to hoe in efficiency first.
The reality that the market realizes (even if the politicians don’t) is that it will be some decades before wind and solar can truly replace the current coal-burning production that primarily powers America. These plants, however, have a lot of room for improvement in themselves and have been undergoing those improvements for some time.
The average modern coal power plant, when built, required 3 pieces of coal to harness the energy of one piece for electricity production. When these plants were built, coal was cheap and inefficiency like this was acceptable. Over time, that’s become less and less so—even with the relatively low price of oil that seems to be the focus of all of this green debate. [1]
On top of that, researchers have also found that coal can be made “clean” in that it will emit much lower amounts of pollutants when burned if that coal has a low sulfur content. Much of the coal in America, especially the west, meets this criteria. Other improvements in plant upgrades and smokestack design have made strides towards improving efficiency greatly. [2]
By contrast, a wind farm can expect an average of 35% of maximum efficiency at any given time during a year. This means the largest waste in wind energy is facility to production costs: more towers must be built in order to make up for probable losses. [3]
However, until solar and other production methods can catch up, it’s likely that our economy will exist on a hybridized system of coal, wind, and natural gas for its energy production. While wind is gaining ground in percentage of production, it is not likely to replace coal anytime soon—if ever.
The Demand Side of Green Power
While the demand side includes some sexy, headline-getting things like electric cars and such, most of the goings-on in this side of the market are quiet and relatively unnoticed. It’s on this side, however, that the biggest strides are being made in improving the green economy.
In fact, energy usage nationally has dropped considerably. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that there was a 4.3% drop in energy usage when March 2009 is compared to March 2008. While many factors are included in this number, not the least of which is the economy as a whole, it’s still telling. [4]
Consumer awareness is one of the biggest strides in effecting how energy efficiency is utilized in the market. As consumers become aware of what that light switch and that appliance are doing, they become more likely to consider how to automate or maximize the efficiency they can gain.
With technology improvements, the belief 30 years ago that in order to “go green” you had to sacrifice your lifestyle and live in a cave has gone. Today, all modern conveniences can be had while being almost completely eco-friendly.
This is where the demand market enters and begins to make improvements. Residential solar, wind, and other power-harnessing supplies are sold, but smaller things that generally go unnoticed such as improved insulation, better appliance technologies, more efficient vehicles, and technologies that work with these improvements to further improve them, are all there.
Gadgets to improve a current vehicle’s efficiency are common, as are automated thermostats for homes, improved airflow fans and air circulators, and more are storming the market.
Most of these improvements aim at transportation and building technology. And with good reason too.
About half the energy consumed in the U.S. goes into buildings: constructing, heating/cooling, and lighting them.
The Funding for the Green Economy
In 2008, cleantech funding in venture capital was behind only IT and biotechnology, which are traditionally the largest venture markets. A total of about $5.8 billion was put into cleantech startups and businesses.
In fact, even upstarts in Washington understand this as many are seeing the Department of Energy (DOE) as the NASA of the 2000s. In the 60s, everyone wanted to work for NASA. Now, it’s the DOE.
While that might be laudable, and it fits with the political push from the White House and Congress towards emphasizing “green,” it’s still government and not the private sector–which produces innovation at a much faster and sustainable pace than government ever has. [5]
In fact, government only innovates in two fields: warfare and taxation. In all other things, private enterprise is where innovation takes place. This is best exemplified by the comparison of green energy innovation in the U.S. versus Europe.
While European governments have heavily subsidized and even paid for green energy production. Denmark, Germany and Spain all went to the forefront of government spending on alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. Very little of that money, however, was used to fuel innovation.
Just looking at dollar figures, the Europeans (plus Israel) spent about $1.8 billion in venture capital for research and development in 2008 while that number was $5.8 billion in the U.S. Very little new technology emerges from Europe when compared to the amount produced by U.S. innovation. [6]
The problem with government funding is that not only does it tend to pick and choose which techs to back (as illustrated by the Obama administration cutting funding to hydrogen research from the DOE’s budget) with little regard as to which is better, but it’s also often quite fickle.
The boom-and-bust cycle of renewable energy production in the 1980s and 1990s were almost entirely due to the fact that government subsidized, removed subsidies, reinstated them, and then pulled them again.
A perfect example of how government funding can create one phenomenon while ignoring another—which private ventures do not—with the consequence being that the government-funded phenom takes credit for the private innovation, is the Internet.
After Al Gore invented it, the scientists and universities who were utilizing the fledgeling Internet did so largely on government funding. In its infancy, it was hard to use, difficult to manage, and often unreliable.
As computers improved, the Internet also did, but not without government funding and many problems with the basis of the ‘Net as a whole. Small improvements in how it was used, presented, and how the infrastructure behind it operated were had, but overall it was stymied by the relative lack of innovation in the one portion of the Internet that held the real keys to its power.
That was telecommunication technology, which suddenly saw a huge amount of innovation and upgrading as the private sector realized the demand for better communications technologies. As the infrastructure rapidly improved and technologies leaped ahead to facilitate faster communication, the Internet suddenly became viable as a medium for more than just trading term papers and studies.
Enter the marketing enterprise and the capitalists. From there, the Internet blossomed as improved communications technologies allowed the ‘Net to become available in homes and offices—not just universities. It exploded to become what it is today. All within a relatively short amount of time—less than two decades.
Yet most of the credit for the Internet is given to the universities and scientists who began it rather than to the entrepreneurs who made it into something that’s part of all of our everyday lives. [7]
What is needed for the green economy is a partnership between government and the capitalists. These partnerships are rarely successful, usually because one side or the other will try to use the other’s powers to get what they want. However, if both sides stick to what they’re best at doing and leave the other alone, a real partnership that is in everyone’s common interest could result.
In other words, if government sticks to taxes (one of the two things it’s truly good at) and capitalists stick to innovation and the rolling out of new technologies (it’s shining point), the partnership could work.
This is part 2 of a 3-part series. Comments have been turned off for this post until the final post is up. Part 3 will publish tomorrow. Thank you.
The On-Again, Off-Again Green Economy, Part I Posted on July 13th, 2009
What It Really Is and Where (and When) It Really Thrives
The terms “green economy” and “green jobs” have become catch phrases. For socialists (aka “progressives”), the terms are rallying points for all things that are anti-capitalism and pro-government. For conservatives (aka “neo-cons”), the terms are spat out as illustrations of the evils of liberal government run amok. For capitalists (aka “libertarian” or “fiscal conservatives”), these phrases are both rallying points and an Axis of Evil.
Few political terms can be used as examples of how illustrative of paradigm differences (and similarities) between supposedly disparate groups can be. When the Republicans were in power, they worked hard to control the way some markets and businesses could operate and now that Democrats are in power, we’re seeing the same trend, just with different targets.
Capitalists, meanwhile, continue to do what they’ve always done: adapt to change, work around government’s obstacles, and keep building up the American economy. In spite of what the Republicans and Democrats do to stop them.
Of course, those in either of the other two camps will immediately have things to say to point out the fallacy they’ll see in that last paragraph. Republicans, after all, are “pro business!” Democrats aren’t against business, just against evil corporate capitalist control.
While these two sound bytes might be enough to placate most believers in either of those paradigms, they are not the truth, nor are they really even close. They’re actually illustrative of the falseness of both points of view. The socialists refuse to admit that capitalists are what made our country great enough to provide them with enough security to be able to espouse their point of view. Neo-cons refuse to admit that “conservatism” was originally a reference to fiscal policy of “hands off” and a social policy of “stay out of it.”
As the blame game between the two sides continues, the real core of the problem remains unattended to by anyone but the capitalists. The question of the when and where for “green jobs” and a “green economy,” both of which are blanket phrases with little meaning, is left virtually unattended by both sides of the argument, except in lip service.
Before delving into the question of how green jobs will emerge with a green economy, we must first define what we mean by this phrase and also look at the history of it, specifically in the U.S.
Defining Green Jobs and a Green Economy
Loosely told, these two things refer to aspects of the same overall theme. While the term “green” is usually used to signify something natural, renewable, or otherwise minimally harming to nature and the earth, the other two words, “jobs” and “economy” refer to parts of that as they apply to humans.
Most of the time, these terms are applied to energy production, use, and storage. Almost always in that order. Throughout known human history, the production, use and storage of energy has been the focus of most of man’s endeavors. Whether it be growing or husbanding food sources, building and maintaining facilities to control our environment, or moving from one location to another—energy is the key.
Today, that means the production of electricity and the movement of transportation vehicles almost exclusively. In all aspects of human activity today, these two things impact our use of energy more than any other. We need energy to move our vehicles, produce and transport our foods, heat and cool our houses and buildings, and so forth.
So our definition of green jobs and economy boils down to two things: transportation and production of electricity. Most of us are fully aware how closely intertwined these two things are. Green jobs will be those jobs which are in the sectors of transportation and energy production while the green economy will be that aspect of our economy (it’s majority) that is based on those two endeavors as well.
A History of the Green Economy
Rather than delve into the far history of human endeavor, we’ll stick with the modern look at the green economy we’ve defined. Even at that, we’ll be taking a limited overview with an extremely broad account of how that economy has progressed in recent times.
At the turn of the century, as the 19th century drew to a close, the new energy economy was really heating up (so to speak). All manner of energy sources were being discovered, harnessed, and exploited as we pushed ahead with the Industrial Revolution that would define our modern existence even a full century later.
Electricity, petroleum, combustible gases, and much more were tried and refined. New materials, new chemicals, whole new sciences, and an Age of Innovation were transforming the human lifestyle from one of hard labor and difficult conditions to one of relative ease. With these changes to humans’ physical environments came an expansion of the intellectual ones, as comfort allowed for mental exploration.
This, in turn, lead to more innovation and more discoveries in what appeared to be an endless cycle. That cycle continues today, though not at the same breakneck speed that it did then. As is often the case in human history, bursts of innovation eventually lead to backlashes of anti-innovators, afraid of the new technology.
As is also often the case, those who stood to make or lose wealth based on those innovations were quick to back or oppose them. This phenomenon also continues today.
By the late 1970s, Americans had embraced most technology and were looking forward to new ones. The petroleum industry had blossomed into a huge economic force throughout the world, especially in both North America and the Middle East.
Easily predicted from hindsight, of course, we can see that as soon as the demand for oil had raised its price sufficiently (thanks largely to political, rather than economic changes), the economy that was so dependent on it (ours) began to falter. Dubbed the “Oil Crunch,” this meant that Americans had to make a choice: stay on petroleum or move towards other sources of energy.
The choice was largely left to America’s political leaders. This was unfortunate, as the market (consumers) and the capitalists who worked with the market’s forces to supply what is demanded would have been better-suited to choose. Politics mean shady dealings and back room handshakes, which meant that those who were politically connected (petroleum) made the decisions for us.
President Carter, himself not as heavily influenced by the petroleum lobby (though he had plenty of others influencing him), hoped to press the American economy towards non-oil-based alternative energy sources. He even went so far as to put solar panels on the White House roof.
His move towards green energy was not necessarily “green” in the sense we have today, but was more of a political gesture. He was acknowledging the heavy influence of the Cold War and its Middle Eastern battleground on America’s welfare and hoped to show that we could remove ourselves from this potentially disastrous foreign policy entanglement.
For a short period of time, it appeared that his support, along with the quick reactions of the capitalists who saw the opportunity, might work. Carter had poured $368 million into the research and development of renewable energy and investors were putting in a lot more as wind towers, PV panels, and more were built around the nation.
Carter further worked to get electric utilities to open their grid to smaller providers and then passed through tax credits to those investing in renewable energy. Congress later increased those subsidies thanks to another oil shock. [1] [2 ] [3]
All three approaches are laudable, though fatally flawed.
First, when government puts money into anything as an incentive, it invariably picks and chooses which is “better,” leaving others which might have a better solution out in the cold. In this case, however, the sum was small enough that it had little impact compared to the free market.
Second, strong arming the utilities into accepting other power generation sources builds bad blood. It’s likely that, given a little time, the market would have pressed this anyway. Not to mention the better way this same thing could have been accomplished by government.
That is the third initiative: tax subsidies and breaks. By offering tax subsidies, government has much more control and power over the market without requiring any new taxes and often without forcing one competitor out of the market in favor of another. Blanket subsidies would also be likely to convince power grid owners to open their grid to other sources without the use of strong arm tactics.
Regardless, the final problem here is that government is fickle. As was proven very quickly in this scenario. The oil crisis abated and petroleum was once again made cheap to purchase from the Middle East. Carter eventually left office and his successor, heavily involved in the petroleum industry, saw no reason to continue his predecessor’s policies. Congress went along, seeing no reason to continue subsidies towards something that was not needed.
So the subsidies were rescinded (allowed to expire) and many of the alternative energy companies of the time, who’d literally build their business models expecting those subsidies to be ongoing, bankrupted. Some that were built smarter survived, of course, and are still around today. This is part of the boom-bust cycle of any market, though as usual its effects were exacerbated by government involvement.
Until now, our dependence on foreign oil became deeper and more absolute until we’ve come to the point where we literally cannot survive economically without it.
The source of much of the greenwashing we hear today, as one side of the political isle or the other attempts to utilize “green” in their rhetoric, is thanks to the average American’s new understanding of how deep our dependence on petroleum has become.
Note: This is part 1 of a 3-part series. Comments have been disabled until the last portion is published. Part 2 is available here and Part 3 is available here.. Thank you.
