[wisconsin_cur]

NYT: Economic Slump may limit Green Projects

Just as the world seemed poised to combat global warming more aggressively, the economic slump and plunging prices of coal and oil are upending plans to wean businesses and consumers from fossil fuel.

From Italy to China, the threat to jobs, profits and government tax revenues posed by the financial crisis has cast doubt on commitments to cap emissions or phase out polluting factories.

Automakers, especially Detroit’s Big Three, face collapsing sales, threatening their plans to invest heavily in more fuel-efficient cars. And with gas prices now around $2 a gallon in the United States, struggling consumers may be less inclined than they once were to trade in their gas-guzzling models in any case.

President-elect Barack Obama and the European Union have vowed to stick to commitments to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and invest in new green technologies, arguing that government action could stimulate the economy and create new jobs in producing sustainable energy.

But as the United Nations prepares to gather the world’s environment ministers in Poznan, Poland, next week to try to agree on a new treaty to reduce emissions, both the political will and the economic underpinnings for a much more assertive strategy appear shakier than they did even a few weeks ago.

[dohboi]

I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, some important work like public transportation projects are likely to be sidelined in this economic environment.

On the other hand, 90-some percent of what we have to do, IMHO, is to reduce our consumption of about everything. Recession accomplishes this, but not in a very equitable way, unfortunately--those at the bottom who are already consuming the least are hit first and hardest.

We are in need of some more alternative energy sources if we are going to shut down all the GW-worsening coal plants, but we are in more need of massive reductions in electric and other energy use, most of which is wasted or frivolous anyway.

Ideally, tight economic times will prevent throwing lots of money at things that seem green but are really not very good as far as EROEI (think ethanol and even PV in many cases).

Our main problem is not that we are not producing enough goods or energy but that we are wasting so much and using it for stupid purposes.

But we seem to lack the capacity for any other form of reduction in resource use than economic collapse.

[Lanthanide]

Our main problem is not that we are not producing enough goods or energy but that we are wasting so much and using it for stupid purposes.

This is of course completely true. Unfortunately, the stupid use (waste) of energy actually corresponds to people's jobs.

Driving away for a summer holiday gives jobs to people working in the motels and restaurants on the highways, it gives jobs to people working at mini golf courses and hiring out boats on lakes. While all of this is truly a waste of resources and not strictly necessary, if you take it all away you take away a huge chunk of the workforce and end up with an ensueing recession/depression. This is one thing that I think is very bad about living in NZ - a large chunk of our economy is built up on tourism, and once that's down the tubes it's hard to see where we go to from there.

Really this all comes down to technological advancement - 40, 50 years ago companies had to employ many more people to keep their books and keep everything running, but these days that can all be done by computers. Similarly a local quarry here used to employ hundreds of people when it was first set up in the late 1800's, but in it's final years it was only employing 20 or so and their output was far greater than those early hundreds, simply due to machinery.

Instead of taking all of this technology and making everyone's lives easier and requiring people to work fewer hours to do the same jobs, people were expected to work just as long but more productively, producing bigger profits for the owners of the capital and letting this small segment of the population live the carefree life that they denied their employees.

Our current social model is simply not set up to deal with a situation where large numbers of the population aren't necessary for productive work and it basically all comes down to greed - those at the top didn't want to share what they had and used their power and influence to make it so.

[dohboi]

"it basically all comes down to greed - those at the top didn't want to share what they had and used their power and influence to make it so."

Well, we certainly agree here. Except I would add that it is not just individual greed, but a whole system (or ideology or religion) of greed called capitalism.

We may well actually reach full employment under PO, since a lot of the mechanization and even the technology that displaced so many will soon be untenable.

But as long as the huge and increasing inequalities in society continue, there is little chance for any buffering from the worst consequences of decline for the vast majority.

Wrenching and destructive change is upon us, no matter what we do. There are a number of things we could do to "manage" a power down that might reduce somewhat the magnitude of the pain. It is almost certain that we will do none or very few of these, and what we do accomplish, we will do so badly that it is likely to make matters worse in the short or long term.

[Graeme]

A Rare Peek at Green Energy Economics

California regulators have approved contracts for more than 8,600 megawatts of renewable energy, to be generated mostly by big solar power plants for the state’s largest utilities. But the details of those deals and the emerging economics of green energy often remain shrouded in secrecy, subject to confidentiality agreements.

That black box cracked open a bit on Thursday, when the California Public Utilities Commission gave the green light to two 25-year power purchase agreements between Pacific Gas & Electric and BrightSource Energy, a solar power plant builder based in Oakland, Calif.

nytimes

[Kaki8]

there are shades of green... the change to renewable energy should not be regulated (the open market is more efficient... at least in theory).

[Graeme]

Green energy investment soars to $260bn

Global investment in clean energy reached a new high of $260bn (£169bn) last year – despite the financial crisis and the anti-environment agenda of Republicans in the US Congress, a United Nations investors' summit was told on Thursday.

Data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which tracks clean energy investment, showed a 5% increase compared with 2010, driven largely by a surge of money going to the solar industry.

Investment in solar power rose 36% last year to $136.6bn. And while the US domestic political scene was riven by the furore over a $535m government loan to the now bankrupt solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra, there was apparently little immediate direct fallout for industry.

The US made $56bn in clean energy investment last year, overtaking China, which invested $47.4bn. It is the first time since 2008 that the US has invested more. The surge reflected the phasing out of Barack Obama's economic recovery plan, which set aside as much as $80bn for the green economy, once investment in high-speed railways is factored in.

guardian

[prajeshbhat]

I am not sure whether renewables are feasible sans fossil fuels. The most successful scheme of renewable energy has been hydroelectric power. But the first hydroelectric power station was built in 1881, well after there a fossil fuel powered infrastructure already in place that is necessary to build large dams. I just cannot imagine people building the three georges dam in the year 1700 (even though people did have small watermills and windmills). I don't know. Maybe I am a the glass is half empty type..