Former cabinet minister Chris Huhne has issued a stark warning that the UK’s economic growth strategy will not work unless the government pursues “green growth” by investing in industries such as energy efficiency and clean energy. Writing in the Guardian, Huhne says: “Much of our economic debate implies we must choose between going green or going for growth. That view may be the opposite of the truth. There is now hard evidence that the real choice is between green growth or no growth at all.”

Huhne, who resigned as energy secretary in February while he fights charges that he asked his former wife to take points on her licence for speeding, does not criticise the government and declined to name those he says are portraying green policies as a barrier to growth. However, senior Liberal Democrats in the coalition have privately complained that some Tory colleagues have been obstructing policies such as the green deal and new building regulations to make homes and offices more energy efficient, as well as the powers of a new green investment bank.

Huhne’s intervention also comes amid growing concern about chancellor George Osborne’s strict austerity cuts in public spending, with critics arguing that he should be spending more to boost growth. Pressure rose last week when official figures showed a second successive quarter of falling economic output – meaning the UK had entered a double-dip recession for the first time since 1975.

This week’s cabinet meeting spent 45 minutes on the issue. The prime minister’s spokesman later denied ministers discussed a change of tactics, but he said there was a conversation about the importance of making sure existing investment schemes did go ahead as planned – suggesting, perhaps, there was some unease about the pace of recovery. Huhne’s argument focuses on an unprecedented situation where developed countries are in recession while energy and materials prices are rising. In the past lower demand from rich nations would have reduced the price of such key commodities, but now they are being driven higher by growth in Asia “on a scale never before experienced in economic history”. (more…)

Jobs in Core Green Economy. New data, released  in the 2012 Many Shades of Green: California’s Shift to a Cleaner, More Productive Economy (www.next10.org), reveals that California’s Core Green Economy showed greater resilience at the height of the recent recession, outperforming the overall economy by retaining a greater percentage of its workforce.  The data, which represents a comprehensive, bottom-up accounting of California’s Core Green Economy, shows that from January 2009 to January 2010, the state’s overall economy registered job losses of seven percent. Those losses are more than two times higher than the job losses tracked in the state’s Core Green Economy, which saw a three percent loss in jobs. In the long term, employment in California’s Core Green Economy grew by 53 percent from 1995-2010, while jobs in the wider economy grew by 12 percent.

“In tracking the growth of the state’s Core Green Economy and the overall economy, we found that the global financial crisis and the mortgage crisis that caused our overall economy to go into a deep dive did not have as damaging an impact on the state’s Core Green Economy,” said F. Noel Perry, founder of Next 10, the nonpartisan research group that produces the report.  Report highlights of Many Shades of Green, which systematically tracks the most recent available data on employment, business establishments, location, and growth across every green sector and region of California, include:

* California’s overall economy saw seven percent job losses in the near term (Jan. 2009-Jan. 2010), while the Core Green Economy fared better in the recession, experiencing three percent job losses. Over the longer term (1995-2010) California’s Core Green Economy grew by 53 percent, while jobs in the wider economy grew by 12 percent over the same time period. [umlaut]o

* The San Diego region, the Bay Area and the Sacramento area have shown the greatest resilience when it comes to retaining jobs. Each recorded Core Green Economy job losses of less than two percent from Jan. 2009-Jan. 2010, while the state overall recorded seven percent job losses over the same time period. (Page 15)

* Longer-term, between 1995 and 2010, Core Green Economy employment expanded in the Sacramento area by 113 percent and in the Bay Area by 76 percent. The San Diego region (+65%) and Orange County (+62%) also recorded strong Core Green Economy job growth numbers. (Page 15) (more…)

There is little doubt that green will be the metaphorical color of choice for world leaders when they gather at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh. Attention will focus on turning the “green shoots” of recovery into sustainable “green growth,” leading to “green economies” consistent with the goal of protecting the world’s climate.

Governments in rich countries are beginning to spell out just what that will mean in terms of policy and lifestyle changes and the investments required to develop clean energy sources. But, to be successful, a “green new deal” will have to address some enormous challenges in the developing world, where the impact of global warming will be felt first and hardest, and where rapid growth requires massive expansion of cheap energy.

Globally, more than 30 million tons of oil equivalent are consumed in the form of primary energy every day, equivalent to 55 kilowatt hours per person per day, with rich countries, on average, consuming more than twice that figure. For many developing countries, the figure is well under 20 kwh; China is still well below the global average, and even most emerging markets consume less than one-third of the average in many advanced economies.

The economics behind efforts to close these energy gaps are relatively straightforward. Up to a threshold of around 100 kwh per capita per day, energy consumption and human development indicators go hand in hand. At current prices, between $10 and $20 per person per day would be needed to reach that threshold.

This puts energy security well beyond the means of not just the poorest, but also of most people in emerging economies. Spending $10 per day on energy services would, for example, exhaust the per capita incomes of countries such as Angola, Ecuador, and Macedonia. Hence, big investments in energy services are the order of the day throughout the developing world.

In order to provide more energy to meet development goals without accelerating global warming, there must be a shift to a new energy infrastructure built around renewables (of which the most significant are probably solar power, wind, and biofuels), cleaner coal, and carbon capture and storage.

The problem is that these are currently much more costly options than their carbon-heavy alternatives. Policy makers in developing countries are concerned that being forced to go down this path could put modern energy services beyond the reach of poor countries, families, and communities.  Market-based solutions to the climate challenge run the very serious risk of undermining development objectives, precisely because they aim to raise the price of energy services in order to makerenewable energy sources attractive to private investors. Indeed, the protectionist elements tacked on to these proposals make them decidedly anti-development.

So what is needed is massive public investment in cleaner energy provision, coupled in the short term with appropriate subsidies to offset high initial prices. If targeted at the most promising technology options (say, solar and wind), such a strategy would yield early unit cost write-downs through innovation, learning, and economies of scale; give the private sector clear, credible, and attractive signals; and encourage energy efficiency.
(more…)

Green Oregon. The catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has spurred President Obama to demand congressional action to reduce our dependence on oil and protect the climate through increased production of renewable clean energy. The president says this will create thousands of “green jobs.”

This sounds like a great idea. But what exactly are green jobs? Can they actually play a major role in reviving the economy?  Last year the Oregon Department of Employment defined green jobs as those that “provide a service or produce a product” in five areas: increasing energy efficiency; producing renewable energy; preventing, reducing or mitigating environmental degradation; cleaning up and restoring the natural environment; and providing education, consulting, policy promotion, accreditation, trading and offsets, and services supporting the other categories.”

That’s a mouthful. For simplicity purposes let’s just say green jobs are employment in the ‘clean energy economy.’  Using 2007 Census Bureau data, a recent study by the Department of Commerce found that the number of green jobs in the United States ranged from about 1.8 million to 2.4 million. Green manufacturing jobs totaled between 200,000 and 240,000, and green service jobs totaled 1.4 million to 1.8 million. Energy and resource conservation and pollution control dominated the field.

The ODE said Oregon had more than 50,000 green jobs in 2008. That accounted for 3 percent of the state’s private, state and local government employment. ODE found that green jobs existed in almost every sector of the economy.  ODE also found that green jobs tend to pay slightly higher wages than other jobs in the state’s economy. Although wages vary significantly depending on the occupation, the average in 2008 was $22.61 per hour. Two-thirds of the jobs paid more than $15 an hour.  The recession, however, caused investments in the clean energy economy to fall nationwide. Oregon has not been immune.  Despite tough times, green jobs seem poised to expand in Oregon. The solar energy business is one of the sectors expected to benefit.

“It’s not a boom, but strong steady growth occurring,” said Eric Westerholm of the Northwest Energy Education Institute at Lane Community College. He administers the renewable energy apprenticeship-training program for the state of Oregon.  ”Companies are positioning themselves for inevitable growth in the field,” he said.  Last year started badly for Advanced Energy Systems of Eugene. But it ended well. In the final three months of 2009 people began to “see a brightening of the economy” according to owner David Parker, and decided to install solar systems to take advantage of tax credits. The firm ended last year in about the same position as it did in 2008. (more…)

Greenhouse emissions in 2010. Starting this year, many mid- to large-sized businesses in Washington state will have to report their greenhouse gas emissions to the state Department of Ecology.  The reporting rule is part of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bill that was passed by the state legislature in 2008. The bill aims to determine the level of emissions being produced in Washington so that a plan can be developed to reduce those emissions.  This is the first time the state has required businesses to report greenhouse gas emissions, and in many aspects, this year will be a trial run for the program. Many of the reporting guidelines are modeled after The Climate Registry, a nonprofit organization that seeks to establish consistent greenhouse gas reporting standards throughout North America.

“Many people are concerned that this (reporting) will be a burden on them,” said Seth Preston, communications manager for the Department of Ecology. “We’re trying to make sure this is as easy as possible for folks.”  Reporting greenhouse gas emissions will be a once-a-year task and businesses will have until Oct. 31 to submit a report on the previous year’s emissions, Preston said.  Not every business will be required to report–they must first reach a certain threshold. For 2010, businesses that emitted 25,000 metric tons or more of greenhouse gas will be required to report. In 2011, that threshold will be reduced to 10,000 metric tons and include more sources.

In general, most heavy industrial companies such as Alcoa and the oil refineries will have to report their emissions this year. But this is something that they’ve been expecting for a while, said Mike Rousseau, plant manager at Alcoa Intalco Works.  ”This isn’t new for us, and [emissions reporting] is something that we believe in at all of our facilities,” Rousseau said.

Last year, Intalco Works and its sister facility in Wenatchee voluntarily signed up to report their emissions to The Climate Registry. So filing another report to the Department of Ecology shouldn’t prove too difficult, Rousseau said, especially since the state guidelines are similar.  Six other West Coast states also have regulations for reporting greenhouse gases, but Washington’s legislation is different in that it includes stationary and mobile sources of emissions. This includes marine vessels, airplanes, trucks and any fleet of commercial vehicles. (more…)