Friday, September 11, 2009

Fw: Climate Progress

Climate Progress


Tom Friedman, Our One-Party Democracy, and the clean energy jobs message

Posted: 09 Sep 2009 06:48 AM PDT

Any first-time visitors from Tom Friedman's column can go here for "An Introduction to Climate Progress."

"China is going to eat our lunch and take our jobs on clean energy — an industry that we largely invented — and they are going to do it with a managed economy we don't have and don't want," said Joe Romm, who writes the blog, climateprogress.org.

The only way for us to match them is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy.

This is from Friedman's column, "Our One-Party Democracy," which he previewed on Meet the Press Sunday.

The jobs argument is a core message for winning the public debate about the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill.

Friedman is a centrist who advances the argument because he knows it is true, because he understands climate science is real, and because he is a hard-core capitalist who sees the tough dynamic the U.S. is facing in the global economy.  If you're not first, you're probably last.

The importance of the clean energy jobs message is evidenced by the fact that the corporate polluters and their right-wing allies in the media will do anything to kill it, from publishing phony studies attacking clean energy jobs to pushing their vile assault on Van Jones, who has been a leading articulator of the message (see "Fox News blurts out its agenda: "Now that Jones has resigned, we need to follow through…. First, stop cap-and-trade, which could send these groups trillions," and then put "the whole corrupt 'green jobs' concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream").

How else do we know the clean energy jobs message is crucial?  Obama also uses it at every opportunity, including his recent Labor Day speech.  In spite of the media's strong desire to push the message that Obama has lost interest in the climate and clean energy bill, once again he said:

We have to build a new foundation for prosperity in America….An America where energy reform creates green jobs that can never be outsourced and that finally frees America from the grip of foreign oil.

And here's yet another way to frame the job message — from Obama again (4/22):

The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline…  We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc across the landscape, or we can create jobs working to prevent its worst effects….  The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources will be the nation that leads the 21st-century global economy.

And Obama again (3/19):

We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or we can create those jobs right here in America and lay the foundation for our lasting prosperity.

Another way to frame the message that polls well is :

Opponents of bill – oil companies, special interests – fighting against energy reform
• They've made America less secure, and more dependent on foreign oil.
• They've protected corporations that pollute the air our children breathe and water they drink.
• This bill protects the American people – by creating 1.7 million new jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

The international competitiveness argument works — but as it turns out, it works best if it is linked directly to the loss of American jobs. This paragraph tests very well in polling of swing voters:

China has a million workers in the clean energy economy. India is doubling their clean energy market in 4 years. Germany is creating nearly three hundred thousand clean energy jobs. If we do nothing, America will lose its competitive edge and American jobs will continue to go overseas

Of course, the jobs message isn't the only one to use to push the clean air, clean water, clean energy jobs bill.  I'll discuss those other core messages in future posts.

Let me end this post by excerpting the Friedman column:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

Our one-party democracy is worse. The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying "no." Many of them just want President Obama to fail. Such a waste. Mr. Obama is not a socialist; he's a centrist. But if he's forced to depend entirely on his own party to pass legislation, he will be whipsawed by its different factions.

Look at the climate/energy bill that came out of the House. Its sponsors had to work twice as hard to produce this breakthrough cap-and-trade legislation. Why? Because with basically no G.O.P. representatives willing to vote for any price on carbon that would stimulate investments in clean energy and energy efficiency, the sponsors had to rely entirely on Democrats….  Thank goodness, it is still a bill worth passing.  But it could have been much better

The only way for us to match them [China] is by legislating a rising carbon price along with efficiency and renewable standards that will stimulate massive private investment in clean-tech. Hard to do with a one-party democracy.

The G.O.P. used to be the party of business. Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business. No one needs immigration reform — so the world's best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business. No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world's next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.

"Globalization has neutered the Republican Party, leaving it to represent not the have-nots of the recession but the have-nots of globalized America, the people who have been left behind either in reality or in their fears," said Edward Goldberg, a global trade consultant who teaches at Baruch College. "The need to compete in a globalized world has forced the meritocracy, the multinational corporate manager, the eastern financier and the technology entrepreneur to reconsider what the Republican Party has to offer. In principle, they have left the party, leaving behind not a pragmatic coalition but a group of ideological naysayers."

Scientists find "net present value of climate change impacts" of $1240 TRILLION on current emissions path, making mitigation to under 450 ppm a must

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 06:39 PM PDT

[The authors of this study framed their results incorrectly, I think, causing many in the media to miscover or ignore the story.]

Scientists led by a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [warn] that the UN negotiations aimed at tackling climate change are based on substantial underestimates of what it will cost to adapt to its impacts.

The real costs of adaptation are likely to be 2-3 times greater than estimates made by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), say Professor Martin Parry and colleagues in a new report published by the International Institute for Environment and Development [IIED].

And as the IIED reported, the study Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change: a review of the UNFCCC and other recent estimates concludes costs will be even more when the full range of climate impacts on human activities is considered.

The study finds that the mean "Net present value of climate change impacts" in the A2 scenario is $1240 TRILLION with no adaptation, but "only" $890 trillion with adaptation.

The mean [annual] impacts in 2060 are about $1.5 trillion….  As usual, there is a long right tail, with a small probability of impacts as large as $20 trillion.

Don't worry folks, it's only a "small probability" — but that "fat tail" by itself is enough to render all traditional economic analyses useless (see Harvard economist: Climate cost-benefit analyses are "unusually misleading," warns colleagues "we may be deluding ourselves and others").  Let's put aside the fact we are on pace to exceed the A2 scenario (which is "only" about 850 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in 2100):  See U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: "Recent observations confirm … the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised" — 1000 ppm.  For this country, the A2 scenario means 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year.

But here's the key point the media and the authors failed to convey.  In the "aggressive abatement" case (450 ppm), the mean "Net present value [NPV] of climate change impacts" is only $410 trillion — or $275 trillion with adaptation.  So stabilizing at 450 ppm reduces NPV impacts by $615 to $830 trillion.  But the abatement NPV cost is only $110 trillion — a 6-to-1 savings or better.

Bizarrely, the authors never point this out directly.  They are adaptation experts, so rather than focusing on the immense economic benefits of preventing catastrophic global warming in the first place, they offer up this secondary conclusion as their primary finding:

Parry and colleagues warn that this underestimate of the cost of adaptation threatens to weaken the outcome of UNFCCC negotiations, which are due to culminate in Copenhagen in December with a global deal aimed at tackling climate change.

"The amount of money on the table at Copenhagen is one of the key factors that will determine whether we achieve a climate change agreement," says Professor Parry, visiting research fellow at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London.. "But previous estimates of adaptation costs have substantially misjudged the scale of funds needed."

Uhhh, not quite.  What threatens to weaken the outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations is that the overwhelming majority of politicians, opinion makers, and journalists in this country (and around the world, I think) don't get that 1) the cost of inaction is catastrophically high [and potentially beyond calculation] and 2) the cost of action is far, far lower [see also "Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost -- one tenth of a penny on the dollar"].

Oh well.  If you're interested in why the IPCC underestimated adaptation costs, the study focuses on several areas:

  • Water: The UNFCCC estimate of US$11 billion excluded costs of adapting to floods and assumes no costs for transferring water within nations from areas of surplus to areas of deficit. The underestimate could be substantial, according to the new report.
  • Health: The UNFCCC estimate of US$5 billion excluded developed nations, and assessed only malaria, diarrhoea and malnutrition. This could cover only 30-50% of the global total disease burden, according to the new report.
  • Infrastructure: The UNFCCC estimate of US$8-130 billion assumed that low levels of investment in infrastructure will continue to characterise development in Africa and other relatively poor parts of the world. But the new report points out that such investment must increase in order to reduce poverty and thus avoid continuing high levels of vulnerability to climate change. It says the costs of adapting this upgraded infrastructure to climate change could be eight times more costly than the higher estimates predicted by the UNFCCC.
  • Coastal zones: The UNFCCC estimate of US$11 billion excluded increased storm intensity and used low IPCC predictions of sea level rise. Considering research on sea level rise published since the 2007 IPCC report, and including storms, the new report suggests costs could be about three times greater than predicted.
  • Ecosystems: The UNFCCC excluded from its estimates the costs of protecting ecosystems and the services they can provide for human society. The new report concludes that that this is an important source of under-estimation, which could cost over US$350 billion, including both protected and non-protected areas.

No surprise, really, given that the IPCC lowballs amplifying feedbacks and climate impacts, too.

Anyway, if you're interested in the important stuff — the enormous benefit of stabilizing at 450 ppm — just jump to Chapter 8, page 103, here.

Duke's Jim Rogers: "Green jobs put people to work, achieve long-term cost savings and ease demand on limited resources…. Performing every job in a more sustainable manner, however, must begin with a mandate from leaders…."

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 05:41 PM PDT

"Green jobs" may be a trendy phrase, but its underlying principles are as old as the Constitution itself.

No doubt Glenn Beck will call now call Jim Rogers a socialist — and some readers may call him schizophrenic or worse.   But the coal-plant-building, climate-bill-endorsing, coal-front-group-quitting CEO of Duke Energy agrees with me that in the future the only jobs left will be green:

There is no such thing as a "green" job. Or at least there shouldn't be.

It has become fashionable to say "green jobs" will lead us out of the recession. Green jobs put people to work, achieve long-term cost savings and ease demand on limited resources. They provide a "paycheck with a purpose."

Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist and author of the book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded," has often said we'll know the green revolution has succeeded when we no longer need the word "green" as a descriptor. Terms like "green buildings" and "green energy" will be redundant as high performance and sustainability become our new "business as usual."

Friedman is right. Reducing waste, improving productivity and boosting efficiency are all traits of the green movement, but they are also hallmarks of good business. Companies of all sizes that embrace these sustainable behaviors are finding that they can enhance their profitability in any economic climate.

Performing every job in a more sustainable manner, however, must begin with a mandate from leaders and involve buy-in from employees.

Very coy, his ambiguous use of the phrase "must begin with a mandate from leaders."  Does he mean corporate CEOs — or Washington DC political leaders?  Either way, it's one thing for Climate Progress to say all future jobs will be green, and quite another for Rogers to do so as a long letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star, a major swing state.  He continues:

Take DuPont, for example. Its production volumes have risen 41 percent since 1990, while energy usage has dropped 7 percent. These results are indicative of decision-making and widespread commitment throughout the company to achieve cost savings wherever possible. Company-wide decision-making and commitment helped achieve cost savings wherever possible.

The same goes for Wal-Mart, a company with a legendary reputation for wringing efficiencies from every link in its supply chain. As Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke puts it: "Using more renewable energy, reducing waste and selling sustainable products help us take costs out of the system." Lower costs result in lower prices for customers.

Since 2000, Ford has cut energy use at its global facilities by 34 percent. Its U.S. employees have increased the automaker's energy efficiency by 4.5 percent, resulting in savings of roughly $18 million.

In the beleaguered auto industry, every penny saved is another critical step toward survival and, we hope, prosperity..

"Green jobs" may be a trendy phrase, but its underlying principles are as old as the Constitution itself.

Keeping the lights on in the safest, most cost-effective way possible — that's Duke Energy's green philosophy. It's one reason we're investing so heavily in smart-grid technologies that will improve the reliability of electric service, conserve power and help customers lower their bills and environmental footprint. It's also why every Duke Energy employee is encouraged to look for new ways to increase efficiency and reduce waste. Our goal is to make the communities we serve the most energy efficient in the world.

Today, on Labor Day, let's begin to broaden our understanding of what constitutes a green job. It's the first step in passing the "grandchildren's test," which asks us to reflect upon how future generations will judge our actions today. We can always work harder, but it takes a conscious decision to work smarter. Let's use our American determination and ingenuity to shed the "green" in "green jobs."

Pretty straightforward stuff.  Pretty scary, then, that FoxNews wants to put "the whole corrupt 'green jobs' concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream."

Waste Not, Watt Not: Energy efficiency cuts pollution while lowering energy bills — that's why it's a core strategy of the climate and clean energy bill

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 02:27 PM PDT

The House climate and clean energy bill has made energy efficiency a centerpiece (see "The triumph of energy efficiency: Waxman-Markey could save $3,900 per household and create 650,000 jobs by 2030").  It would generate some $500 billion through 2025 in efficiency investments alone (see "The only way to win the clean energy race is to pass the clean energy bill").  This new CAP analysis, which includes a state-by-state data on energy savings, cost savings, job creation, and pollution reductions from efficiency investments under the American Clean Energy and Security Act (.xls), by Daniel J. Weiss, Erica Goad, and Jonathan Aronchick was first published here.

Energy efficiency is the "low-hanging fruit" of energy policy, and is the quickest, easiest, and most cost-effective way of driving new investment, creating jobs, saving consumers money, and cutting pollution.  Energy efficiency alone could cheaply—and often profitably—provide two-thirds the necessary greenhouse gas reductions to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050—a level based on the science-driven conclusion that the risks of dangerous climate impacts rise sharply as planetary warming exceeds 2°C from preindustrial levels. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454—which passed the House and is now pending in the Senate—recognizes and invests in the economic benefits of energy efficiency.

The bill would provide up to $65 billion in allowances from 2012 to 2020 for state and local government energy efficiency programs (see chart). These funds are in addition to other investments in energy efficiency from utilities and the federal government. The state and local programs in ACES would create up to 137,000 jobs in 2015 from energy efficiency investments that year [1]. It would save consumers up to $63 billion on their electricity bills from 2012-2020, while reducing enough greenhouse gas pollution during this period to equal taking 26.5 million cars off the road.

These projections are based on our analysis that provides estimates of efficiency investments, job creation, electricity savings, and greenhouse gas pollution reductions under state and local government energy efficiency programs funded by ACES. This includes the cumulative benefits from these efficiency investments. Once a building is made more efficient, the electricity savings and pollution reductions accrue every year compared to business as usual. So the lower energy costs that occur due to investments in 2012 are also a benefit in 2013, 2014, and so on. Any energy savings from efficiency measures undertaken in 2013 are in addition to the savings in 2012.

There are many techniques to increase energy efficiency. State and local programs can fund investments that include insulating and weather-stripping homes, constructing "green" rooftops, replacing leaky windows, installing efficient heating and cooling systems, and replacing inefficient appliances with those that have high Energy Star ratings.

Retrofitting existing buildings can make the biggest and most meaningful dent in carbon emissions, and it can lay the foundation for sustained economic growth. The Center for American Progress and Energy Future Coalition report "Rebuilding America" describes the federal policies necessary to create a nationwide market for building efficiency retrofits.

Accomplishing these and other energy efficiency improvements would create jobs and save consumers money, contributing to the nation's economic recovery. Along with much-needed jobs, economy-wide energy-saving opportunities are worth more than $130 billion annually to the U.S. economy. This is why consultancy McKinsey & Co. concluded that energy efficiency represents a "vast, low-cost energy resource for the U.S. economy, but only if the nation can craft a comprehensive and innovative approach to unlock it."

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES, contains such "comprehensive and innovative" provisions that capitalize on the benefits of energy efficiency investments. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, determined recently that the bill would lead to a 7-percent decline in the average household electric bills by 2020 due to its energy efficiency measures. This would save the average household $84 annually in lower bills.

What's more, "The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" by the University of Massachusetts and Center for American Progress, found that investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and ACES would create 1..7 million net new jobs. These jobs would include positions for electricians, heating/air conditioning installers, carpenters, construction equipment operators, roofers, insulation workers, building inspectors, civil engineers, iron and steel workers, millwrights, and industrial production managers.

An essential program in the American Clean Energy and Security Act would give substantial financial support to state and local governments to undertake energy efficiency efforts. The bill (Title I, Subtitle D) would create the State Energy and Environment Development program, or SEED, to provide up to $8 billion annually to states in the form of pollution allowances that they could sell to emitters on the open market. These funds would then be invested in different efficiency and renewable energy technology efforts depending on the needs of each state and its local governments to use for initiatives such as retrofitting public and private buildings, community energy education, schools programs, and programs that incentivize efficiency.

The funds from SEED allowances would dramatically expand state and local efficiency programs. This would create jobs, save consumers money, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has the potential to create up to 137,000 jobs in 2015 if states invest all of their discretionary allowances into efficiency programs.. California could add up to 8,600 jobs undertaking efficiency projects. Ohio would add up to 5,300 new jobs, while 6,300 are possible in Pennsylvania..

All of this job creation would occur from these energy efficiency investments alone. As noted in "The Economic Benefits" study, they represent only a fraction of the clean-energy investments and new jobs that would occur under other energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution reduction provisions in ACES. The

legislation has a number of other provisions that would create jobs, lower electric bills for consumers, and cut pollution. These include:

  • The Clean Energy Deployment Administration—the Green Bank—which could underwrite state and local governments' credit obligations to support energy efficiency (and renewable) investments made by private individuals.
  • More efficient building codes, which would be established to cut energy use in half by 2016. States could sell allowances to implement these new codes.
  • More efficient standards, which would be established for appliances for outdoor lighting, televisions, commercial grade natural gas furnaces, and other inefficient appliances.

These and other measures in H.R. 2454 would save energy, cut costs, and reduce pollution beyond this analysis of state and local governments spending allowance value on energy efficiency programs.

Energy efficiency benefits the U.S. economy. It reduces consumer energy bills, makes America more energy independent, and cuts global warming pollution. Efficiency also creates jobs. The technology necessary to make our lives more energy efficient and our economy more secure is ready and easily accessible. Under the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the United States can move toward both a sustainable and a thriving economy. Efficiency standards and the subsequent job creation, consumer savings, and pollution reductions are just some of the many reasons why the Senate should pass similar legislation this fall.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress. Erica Goad is a former intern and Jonathan Aronchick a current intern with the Energy team at American Progress.

Endnotes

[1] The number of jobs created each year due to state spending under these efficiency programs varies depending on the total dollar amount invested in each program. The peak investment is $8.2 billion of allowances in 2015, which is used for calculating the job creation that year. The average total allowance value is $7.2 billion annually from 2012-2020, which would create an average of 120,000 jobs annually. Unlike energy and greenhouse gas reductions, the job totals are not cumulative. Every year of spending creates a number of jobs for that year alone.

Methodology

The data used in this analysis does not exist in one place. The data on allowance allocation estimates for state and local efficiency programs was obtained from the World Resource Institute and Georgetown Climate Center based on their analysis of allowances to states. Their analysis is "Analysis of Allowances to States Under H.R. 2454" by John Larsen, Kate Zyla, and Gabriel Pacyniak. This report summarizes the Allowance Distribution to States and Energy Consumers under H.R. 2454.

From 2012 to 2020, ACES would provide 1.2 billion allowances for "energy efficiency – home heating oils through states" and "energy efficiency – through states (SEED + EE building codes + building retrofit)." There are 2 billion allowances provided during this same period for the "energy efficiency OR renewable energy (or other) – through states" program, which states have discretion to spend on a combination of renewables and efficiency. For the purposes of this analysis, the assumption is that 100 percent of the allowances value is used for state and local energy efficiency programs. Thus, the jobs, energy and consumer savings, and greenhouse gas pollution reductions are upper bounds. The allowance value calculations assumes Congressional Budget Office allowance price of $16 to $26 per ton from 2012-2020.

The benefits from an investment in efficiency continue to accrue annually in the years following the investment. For instance, the nationwide investment in state efficiency programs of $6.4 billion in 2012 would yield a reduction in electricity use of nearly 13,000 MWh. The efficiency measures that produce this result will remain in place in 2013, so there will be another 13,000 MWh electricity savings. These savings are in addition to the new savings from the additional efficiency measures funded by the $6.7 billion in 2013. So the electricity savings and greenhouse gas pollution reductions are cumulative, and the figures in this analysis reflect this phenomenon.

The Department of Energy developed an "estimated expected benefits" calculator that local governments can use as a resource when submitting their Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant proposals. Since applicants for EECBG formula grants for efficiency are required to estimate the numbers of jobs created, the energy saved, and the greenhouse gas emissions reduced for each activity, the calculator was developed to assist with these estimates. Thus, the calculator can be used to estimate the direct benefits of state investments in energy efficiency.

The estimated value of the reduced electricity use was derived using each state's 2007 average electricity rate from the Department of Energy. Since electricity prices increased in 2008, the estimated savings from lower electricity use are fairly conservative. The greenhouse gas reductions were derived using the Environmental Protection Agency's 2005 estimate of state CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour multiplied by the energy savings from DOE's benefits calculator.

"The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy" analysis by the Political Economy Research Institute and Center for American Progress estimates that the direct, indirect, and induced effect for $1 million in spending is 16.7 jobs. This figure was used for the job creation estimates in this report.

Thanks to Benjamin Goldstein, John Larsen, and Kate Zyla. Special Thanks to Will Thomas.

See state-by-state data on energy savings, cost savings, job creation, and pollution reductions from efficiency investments under the American Clean Energy and Security Act (..xls)

Related Posts:

Energy and Global Warming News for September 8: China is the world leader in solar hot water heating; Japan climate pledge conditional on China, India

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 12:11 PM PDT

"Ninety-nine percent of households in Rizhao, China, use solar water heaters like these."

Solar water heaters in Rizhao, China

China, green? In the case of solar water heating, yes

In a nation known more for its belching smokestacks, solar water heaters are on nearly every roof in some cities. Manufacturers are eyeing foreign markets, including Southern California.

Before her family bought a solar water heater, Liu Yan would bathe the way many working-class Chinese have for generations: boil water, dampen a rag and wipe away the dirt.

Today, the 40-year-old mother and her family shower every day and wash their dishes with hot water. The stainless steel heater affixed to her red-tiled roof cost about $220.

The device has become a symbol of China's rising standard of living and its leap into the era of clean energy.

In the seaside city of 2.8 million where Liu lives in Shandong province, 99% of households use solar water heaters. The mattress-sized contraptions dominate Rizhao's skyline, resting haphazardly on almost every residential rooftop.

In the global race to develop green technology and stem climate change, China has quickly become a leading producer of solar panels and wind turbines. It also dominates the lesser-known technology of solar water heaters.

Using principles of solar heating more than a century old, the humble, low-cost devices consist of an angled row of cola-colored glass tubes that absorb heat from the sun. The most common models fill the tubes with cold water. As it heats, the water rises into an insulated tank where it can remain hot for days….

The heating of water accounts for a quarter of a typical building's energy usage. The Chinese solar heaters are estimated to have prevented more than 20 million tons of carbon dioxide that would have been emitted annually using electrical units.

The heaters will be much needed if Beijing is to meet its goal of reducing its reliance on coal, which supplies 80% of the country's energy. The central government aims to meet 15% of its energy needs through renewable sources by 2020. Beijing hopes to triple its solar heater capacity by the same year, according to Greenpeace China.

The technology's gains here lie in its affordability, the dearth of residential natural gas service and the modest expectations of consumers, many of whom had never enjoyed hot water at home before. The starting price for one of the clunky devices is around $220, about the same as an electric heater in China. In the United States, where labor costs are higher and systems tend to be larger and more elaborate, solar water heaters can easily cost $1,500 or more.

Oh and now it turns out that Japan's pledge — to slash CO2 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 — is conditional.

Not So Fast: Japan Climate Pledge Conditional on China, India

If a week is a lifetime in politics, what is five days? Time enough for a reality check, apparently.

Japan's new ruling party, the Democratic Party of Japan, now says that its ambitious promise to curb greenhouse-gas emissions "is based on the premise that there will be an international agreement including China and India," Reuters reports. This from the man who could be Japan's next finance minister:

"This is not something Japan will do on its own," party secretary-general Katsuya Okada said in an interview with Reuters. "The premise is an agreement that includes other countries such as China and India."

That, to say the least, makes a big difference. Trying to get China and India to agree to any sort of global climate deal has become a green industry in its own right. Neither wants to submit to limits on emissions; both want hundreds of billions of dollars in Western clean-tech financing. Both conditions make final agreement at the December Copenhagen summit more difficult.

Maldives to introduce green tax on tourists

The Maldives archipelago, threatened by rising sea levels blamed on climate change, said on Monday it would introduce a new environment tax on all tourists who use its resorts and provide its economic lifeline.

Famed mostly for high-end luxury resorts and white-sand atolls, the Maldives has made a name for itself as an advocate for mitigating climate change because rising sea levels are forecast to submerge most of its islands by 2100.

The Maldives' $850 million economy gets more than a quarter of its gross domestic product from tourists, but has not yet taxed them to help it fight climate change.

President Mohammed Nasheed, who in March outlined plans to make the Maldives the world's first carbon-neutral nation within a decade, said an environment tax was soon to be levied on all tourists.

"We have introduced a green tax. It's in the pipeline. It's a matter of parliament approving it and I hope parliament will approve it — $3 per each tourist a day," Nasheed told reporters in Male, the capital of the Indian Ocean archipelago.

The U.S. Climate Change Bill: International Trade Implications & China

Health care will not be the only derisive issue on the Senate's calendar when it returns to Congress on September 8. This past June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the "Climate Change Bill").Far-reaching in its impact on the U.S. economy and particularly detrimental to certain energy-insensitive sectors, debate in the Senate will become increasingly cantankerous as special interests and certain states lobby for protection.

And while the Bill, through a series of complicated cap-and trade equations and a plethora of subsidies to renewable energy, has the potential to completely alter the domestic market, debate thus far has been about its global impact. With fear that countries like China will not pass legislation to cap their domestic industries' carbon output, the House added two provisions to protect U.S. industries from companies in countries that are not similarly restrained. Out of a 1,400 page bill, these two provisions have become the center of the debate, some calling these provisions much needed protection and others calling them tariffs.

But conspicuously absent from these discussions is an analysis of what is really going on here. How exactly do these provisions work? Will they have the intended effect of maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. industries or are they attempts by certain industries to protect their profits? Will these provisions bring countries like China to the table in Copenhagen or will they ultimately produce a tariff war? Can they withstand a challenge under global trade rules?

To answer these questions, I sat down with Jake Caldwell, director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at the Center for American Progress. You can listen to the interview here.

EU proposes U.N. war chest for climate funds

The United Nations should set up a war chest to help process the billions of dollars poor countries will be paid to slash their greenhouse gas emissions, the European Union has proposed.

The facility would sit separately from an existing "Adaptation Fund," which aims to soften the impact of climate change on crops and water sources, the executive European Commission added in a draft report, seen by Reuters on Monday.

The EU hopes to find unity on its financial support for the developing world in coming weeks to boost the chances of success at international climate talks in December in Copenhagen, where countries aim to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

The paper is one of the first attempts to deal with the practicalities of collecting and distributing the billions of dollars poor countries say they will need before signing any such deal.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown says $100 billion will be needed annually by poor nations by 2020, but some environmentalists put the figure near $140 billion. Ethiopia says Africa will veto any deal that is not generous enough.

Much of the flow of funds from rich to poor nations will be handled bilaterally, but the EU has suggested this money could be supplemented by taxing fuel for ships and aviation.

"It could be natural to assign this new finance to a new fund set up under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)," the report added.

Global Business Leaders, Policy Makers, and NGOs Convene to Catalyze Partnerships

More than 100 global thought leaders on sustainability convened today in Shanghai to develop an action plan to drive China's greentech market forward. Greentech: A Call to Action is based on market-defining analysis and unprecedented US-China collaborative programs.The conference provides a roadmap to move from agreements anddiscussions to actionable greentech solutions.

Organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai (AmCham Shanghai) and the Asia Society Northern California, Greentech: A Call to Action is a platform for executive and government decision makers to collaborate and drive US-China cooperation, which is essential to the development of a greentech market and a sustainable future. The conference has attracted international executives including Mark Norbom, President & CEO of GE China, Dr. Shi Zhengrong, Chairman & CEO of Suntech, and David C. Wang, President of Boeing China and political leaders from China and the U.S. including Fu Zhihuan, Chairman, Finance Committee, 10th National People's Congress and U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy.

"As two of the world's largest economies, as well as the world's largest importers of oil, consumers of coal and emitters of greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China have the potential to become world leaders in developing and deploying green technologies," said Brenda Foster, president of AmCham Shanghai. "The private sector, working closely with government, will play a key role in defining this market."

A primary goal of Greentech: A Call to Action is to overcome impediments that have prevented the U.S. and China from working together in a truly joint partnership. Bruce Pickering, Executive Director of the Asia Society Northern California said, "As in so many other areas, the relationship between the United States and China will be crucial to tackling the problems of sustainability and climate change. If we deal with these issues in a positive and constructive fashion, we can begin to chip away at what will likely be the critical issue of the 21st century. We really don't want to contemplate any other outcome."

France Mulls CO2 Taxes on Citizens

The French government plans next year to begin making heavy users of household and transport fuels bear more of the tax burden. President Nicolas Sarkozy is expected to say in coming weeks that such a shift is necessary to nudge French citizens toward cleaner alternatives.

The tax would reportedly start at about 14 euros (or $20) for each ton of CO2 emitted, and could rise to levels of around 100 euros ($143) for each ton by 2030. That could mean substantial increases in the price of gasoline and diesel, as well as a sizable jump in the cost of keeping homes warm.

But skeptics say the idea may have less to do with clean energy, and more to do with a desire on the part of Mr. Sarkozy's government to find new ways to keep the national debt in check.
Creating Renewable-Energy Employment

There was no shortage of suggestions when the National Clean Energy Summit convened in Las Vegas last month to contemplate how to build a new clean-energy economy and create millions of so-called green jobs along the way.

Among the most popular proposals, despite skepticism in some quarters, was a call to create construction, manufacturing and administrative jobs through a building-retrofit program.

"The low-hanging fruit is the simplest but least sexy thing, fixing what we are doing now and becoming more efficient," former President Bill Clinton told conference participants Aug. 10.

Retrofitting buildings with energy-efficient lighting, windows, insulation or climate-control systems, for instance, could put Americans back to work in the industries hardest hit by the economic downturn, according to a report released recently by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for American Progress, a public-research group headed by Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.

About 1.6 million U.S. construction workers are without jobs, or 17 percent of the total construction workforce. The number reaches 25 percent in some of the hardest-hit areas of the country, such as California and Arizona. Additionally, 2 million U.S. manufacturing workers are unemployed, 12 percent of that workforce.

Tokyo Electric to use carbon market

Tokyo Electric Power Co expects to keep buying carbon credits overseas beyond 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto climate pact ends, the company's climate section chief said, underscoring the firm's continued reliance on the global emissions trading market.

TEPCO, Asia's biggest utility, is already one of the top buyers of globally traded carbon credits under the protocol's market schemes to help Japan, the world's No.5 greenhouse gas emitter, to meet its Kyoto commitments.

TEPCO redeemed 24.8 million tons of such credits to offset 20 percent of its CO2 emissions in the past year.

It is now considering how to meet a tough CO2 intensity goal that a 10-company industry lobby, the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, has voluntarily committed itself to achieving in the year starting in April 2020.

"We see a rocky road ahead as the industry-wide 2020 target will need to be met mainly by our own efforts," Yoshihiro Kageyama, general manager of TEPCO's environment department, said at the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit.

But he did not say when the company's 2020 target would be announced.

Renewable energy plan creates rift

The morning heat hits triple digits as a whiptail lizard darts below a creosote bush near Route 66. Gazing across the desert valley, power company executives, environmentalists and federal land managers stand beneath a cloudless sky and argue over the landscape.

PG&E project manager Alice Harron says she is "comfortable" with the solar power plant her utility wants to build on government land here along 4 miles of the Mother Road that connected Chicago and Los Angeles long before the interstate system.

David Myers of the Wildlands Conservancy is not. Renewable energy projects such as this one — which could power 224,000 homes — sound good in theory, he says, but if they tear up pristine vistas, they're not "green."

President Obama wants a "clean-energy economy" that relies on renewable sources such as solar and wind power instead of coal and oil. He wants to put these new utilities on federally owned lands like this stretch of the Mojave Desert, one of the sunniest places on Earth.

The administration wants to lead the way by taking advantage of its vast holdings, which account for 20% of all land in the USA, mostly in the West. That idea is creating a rift among environmentalists, who favor renewable energy but are at odds over where to produce it. Some are willing to compromise with utility companies to build large power plants on remote federal lands to accelerate the transition to clean energy.

Climate change: melting ice will trigger wave of natural disasters

Scientists are to outline dramatic evidence that global warming threatens the planet in a new and unexpected way – by triggering earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches and volcanic eruptions.

Reports by international groups of researchers – to be presented at a London conference next week – will show that climate change, caused by rising outputs of carbon dioxide from vehicles, factories and power stations, will not only affect the atmosphere and the sea but will alter the geology of the Earth.

Melting glaciers will set off avalanches, floods and mud flows in the Alps and other mountain ranges; torrential rainfall in the UK is likely to cause widespread erosion; while disappearing Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets threaten to let loose underwater landslides, triggering tsunamis that could even strike the seas around Britain.

At the same time the disappearance of ice caps will change the pressures acting on the Earth's crust and set off volcanic eruptions across the globe. Life on Earth faces a warm future – and a fiery one.