welcome

In a Daily Beast exclusive, Tony Blair urges Obama to tackle the climate change catastrophe—even as the economic meltdown dominates the agenda.

To a large extent, 2009 will be characterized by our efforts to head off the worst consequences of the economic catastrophe. But 2009 should also be the year we summon the will and wit to conclude a new treaty on Climate Change, one which will have all major economies, including America as a signatory, one that is radical and realistic.

Some say that due to the economic crisis, action on the environment should be postponed. But either the climate is changing or it isn’t. If it is—and the scientific consensus on this is now vast—we cannot ignore it. To do so would be to multiply the risks to our future economy as well as environment. Reasons of energy security also compel us to act.

I would argue that the current economic woes provide us not with an excuse for inaction but a reason for acting.

It is now, right now, at the instant when our thoughts are centred on the economic challenge that we must not set to one side the challenge of global warming, but instead resolve to meet it and put the world on a path to sustainable growth for the future. Now is the moment when our responsibility to future generations must be answered. The decisions of 2009 will determine the world of 2029 or 2049 and beyond. Those decisions must be right.

What is more, I would argue that the current economic woes provide us not with an excuse for inaction but a reason for acting. Let us stimulate economic growth by investing in alternative energy and energy efficiency; and let us invest now in these times of lower carbon price to prepare for the times when that price rises again. Let us put economic growth and combating climate change in alliance not opposition.

President Obama’s economic stimulus package, recently approved by the Senate, includes substantial support for clean energy and energy efficiency, recognizing that these investments will not only be good for jobs and economic recovery but also improve the country’s energy security and begin to cut greenhouse gas emissions. China, Korea, and others are following suit.

Yet as we speak, emissions are rising, even though the means of transformation, the technological potential and the scientific knowledge are there before us. This is not a problem without a solution. The creativity, ingenuity, and innovation of humanity are on hand to solve humanity's self-made problem. But we need to place that brainpower within a framework of global action that incentivizes, encourages, and propels it forward. Without a global agreement, the task cannot be done. We cannot wait for things to take their course. We must change course to do it, do it together and do it now.

And this agreement needs to involve all major emitting countries, from both the developed and developing world. Action by one group without the other will not be enough to stop dangerous climate change. While there is no doubt that the rich countries must take the lead, developing countries—notably China and other emerging economies—will also have to play a major part. Action—even according to differentiated obligations—has to be action done in common, on a global basis, if it is to be effective.

I do not understate the complexity and sensitivity of achieving such a global agreement. American and European business faces the toughest of times. China and India have a complete and justifiable determination to maintain strong economic growth so that the hundreds of millions that languish still in poverty, even as part of their economies push into the first world, are lifted from the mire. The question is not to grow or not to grow; but how we grow.

The primary objective of any global deal will be to save our environment for the future. But it would, in doing so, result in something else: a resurgence of belief that multilateral agreement is possible; that nations working in concert can produce results. It may well be, also, that in striking a deal on climate change, the strength of the relationship between America and China can be demonstrated and deepened.

President Obama has already made very clear the importance he places on U.S. leadership on tackling global climate change. Over the course of 2009, U.S. policymakers will debate U.S. climate policy at the local, state, and national level. This debate will generate the principles for climate legislation alongside policies on the economy and energy security. Through the progress it makes in formulating its climate policy, the U.S. will send an important signal to the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

However, building the case for urgent action on climate change in the face of the economic crisis will be no easy task. Fostering public confidence will be crucial. Congress will not take ambitious action on climate change unless they are convinced that their economic concerns have been fully recognized and legislation will be designed to address this. That is why I am chairing a meeting in Congress today—“U.S. domestic action—a Global Economic perspective”—sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), John McCain (R-AZ), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), on Capitol Hill. This event will bring together U.S. business leaders, governors, economists and global climate leaders.

We must move forward, despite the recent calamities and pressing challenges in the times to come. If we do this, we can look upon the future not with fear but with hope, hope born of confidence that history never poses problems that humankind cannot resolve.

Tony Blair is founder of the Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative to work for a new global deal for a low carbon future.

"Energy efficiency is truly the low-hanging fruit in the climate change discussion," says Marvin Malecha, president of the American Institute of Architects.

"We can and we must make our buildings, appliances, and transportation systems more energy efficient," he said Thursday, as a coalition of business, professional, energy, and environmental organizations offered their views on the role of energy efficiency in federal climate change legislation that is now beginning to wend its way through the legislative process.

"Energy efficiency can slash greenhouse gas emissions at low cost and in large quantities. A carbon cap is essential to getting those savings but we don't use all cost-effective energy efficiency now and we still won't with a price on carbon," said Joe Loper with the Alliance to Save Energy. "We need to design the program right to wring carbon from our homes, offices, industrial plants, and vehicles," he continued.

Currently, the United States does not have a federal greenhouse gas reduction requirement, although, in recent years, there have been various bills proposed to require reductions.

Both the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Environment and Public Works Committees are poised to revisit cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions this session, with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, hoping to push such legislation through the committee by Memorial Day.

"Including energy efficiency in a cap-and-trade bill is essential because energy efficiency provides 'avoided tons' of greenhouse gases at the lowest cost," said Steven Nadel, the coalition's coordinator and also the executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

"Energy efficiency reduces the cost of cap-and-trade because fewer new power-producing facilities are needed and because a smaller portion of existing facilities need to be upgraded to help meet emissions ceilings," he said.

Other participants in the coalition are the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Environment Northeast, Johnson Controls, Inc., National Association of Energy Service Companies, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Real Estate Roundtable.

The coalition recommends two main approaches - providing funding for energy efficiency using revenue from carbon credits and adopting a set of complementary policies in an energy efficiency title to the legislation.

They estimate about $15-20 billion will need to be invested each year for energy efficiency deployment programs and policies in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

This is in addition to the more than $6 billion each year needed for low-income energy efficiency programs, $8 billion for transportation policies and programs, and $3 billion for clean energy research and development.

"Energy efficiency is an essential component of a comprehensive energy and climate policy anchored by a cap on global warming pollution," said Jim Presswood with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"The level of investment recommended by this broad-based coalition builds on the huge boost the economic recovery bill gives to energy efficiency programs, which have been ramping up over the past several years," he said.

The group also recommended complementary energy efficiency policies such as:

• setting utility energy saving targets
• establishing advanced building energy codes and appliance standards
• extending and enhancing current federal energy efficiency tax incentives
• establishing programs to promote comprehensive energy retrofits to existing buildings including homes,
• commercial buildings, multifamily buildings, and assisted housing
• achieving an average of at least 42 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by 2020.

Derek Murrow with Environment Northeast said, "The recommended policies and programs reinforce how critically important energy efficiency is to any cap-and-trade program that seeks to reduce environmental impacts while enhancing the nation's economy."

The cap-and-trade program will also produce a major boost in employment. "We have seen a dramatic growth in energy efficiency jobs during the past decade," said Donald Gilligan, president of the National Association of Energy Service Companies. "The industry today employs more than 1.5 million people. We can continue that growth with this legislation, and make energy efficiency a cornerstone of the American economy in the 21st century."

Click here to read the report, "Reducing the Cost of Addressing Climate Change Through Energy Efficiency."

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2009. All rights reserved.

In Portland, new buildings that are not LEED Silver-certified or better may face a punitive tax, if a recent proposal goes through.

New commercial buildings 20,000 square feet or larger would fall under a so-called “feebate” program, in which developers that merely comply with Oregon’s state building code would be charged as much as $3.46 a square foot. For buildings that achieve LEED Silver certification or better, the fee would be waived, and some developments would even qualify for a rebate of $1.73-17.30 per square foot depending on the certification level.

Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability also may require buildings to achieve specific LEED credits, such as for energy efficiency and reducing water use.

The proposal has been met with some criticism, but it has earned the backing of the Portland Oregonian newspaper’s editorial board.

Portland has landed atop a list of America’s greenest cities.

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO, Mar. 4 -- Dot Eco LLC (www.dotecotld.com), the applicant for the new .eco top level domain, today announced it has entered into an integrated partnership with former Vice President Al Gore and his philanthropy, the Alliance for Climate Protection (www.climateprotect.org), to secure and promote the .eco top level domain.

.eco will be established for individuals to express their support for environmental causes, for companies to promote their environmental initiatives, and for environmental organizations to maintain their websites in a namespace that is more relevant to their core missions. By charter, a majority of the profits of the .eco initiative will be distributed to support environmental causes.

“We fully support Dot Eco LLC in its efforts to secure the .eco top level domain through the ICANN application process and look forward to working with Dot Eco LLC to promote .eco. This is a truly exciting opportunity for the environmental movement and for the internet as a whole,” said Al Gore.

Added Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection: “The .eco initiative, as proposed by Dot Eco LLC, is a unique approach for fundraising for nonprofit environmental organizations such as ours. We are thrilled to be working with Dot Eco LLC to generate funds for our organization and to promote awareness of climate change.”

“It is an honor and a privilege to be working with Al Gore and Cathy Zoi on the .eco initiative,” said Fred Krueger, CEO of Dot Eco LLC. “We are confident that we will generate substantial funds for the Alliance for Climate Protection to promote their efforts to increase awareness of climate change.”

“We believe that this initiative represents an example of the type of compelling top level domains made possible by ICANN’s new gTLD application process,” added Krueger.

The advisory board of Dot Eco LLC includes Davis Guggenheim (director of An Inconvenient Truth), Roger Moore (renowned actor and Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF), Richard Muller (Author of Physics for Future Presidents and contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Jim Dufour of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

About Dot Eco LLC
Dot Eco LLC was founded in 2008 by Fred Krueger and Clark Landry to secure, operate and promote the .eco top level domain in order to promote environmental initiatives and awareness. Dot Eco LLC will be applying for the .eco top level domain through the ICANN gTLD application process in late 2009.

By Our Foreign Staff
Last Updated: 2:49PM GMT 27 Feb 2009

The vast majority of the paper used by American consumers is produced from virgin forests, while Europeans are more open to using recycled lavatory paper.

Greenpeace this week launched a guide about the ecological impact of the use of toilet paper. Lindsey Allen, a forestry expert with the envirnmental campaign group, said: "We have this myth in the US that recycled is just so low quality, it's like cardboard."

More than 98 per cent of the toilet paper sold in the US is from virgin forests, with the figure just under 60 per cent in Europe.

US consumers consume significantly more of the paper than Europeans - reportedly three times as much. They are said to use 100 times paper per head of population than the Chinese.

Allen Hershkowitz, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: "Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age. Making toilet paper from virgin wood is a lot worse than driving [petrol-thirsty cars] in terms of global warming pollution."

American producers of the products maintain that there is ample choice for consumers, with recycled toilet paper - which involves less use of chemicals when manufactured - available widely in the US.

Shops gave out 3.5 billion fewer plastic bags last year under a voluntary scheme which has, for now, headed off the threat of a government ban on free carrier bags. Figures from Wrap, the Government's anti-waste body, show that the number of plastic bags dispensed fell from 13.4 billion in 2007 to 9.9 billion last year, a drop of 26 per cent.

Wrap said that when taking into account increased recycled content in the bags, the use of virgin materials in the bags had been slashed by 40 per cent, well above the 25 per cent target set in 2007. Supermarkets have now agreed a target of reducing the number of bags by 50 per cent – from 2006 levels – by May. But the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), while welcoming the new figures, warned that it would retain the option of introducing a charge for bags if stores failed to honour their commitments.

Environmental campaigners lambaste plastic bags as one of the worst excesses of consumerism. The bags waste resources and end up in landfill, scattered across the countryside or swirling round the seas, where they choke and kill marine life, particularly turtles. Several countries have banned the bags, including Rwanda, Bhutan, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Zanzibar and Botswana.

In the UK, 21 leading supermarkets and high street chains agreed in February 2007 to cut bag waste by 25 per cent. Britain's biggest retailer, Tesco, introduced loyalty points for customers reusing bags, helping slash the number of bags by two billion, and other stores such as Sainsbury's have moved bags from the bagging area, putting the onus on customers to request them. As a result, shoppers have become more used to reusing carrier bags or buying sturdier, long-lasting alternatives such as jute bags. "Consumers deserve congratulations for these results as they clearly show we are moving away from using bags once to re-using bags often," said Liz Goodwin, Wrap's chief executive. "They are also a credit to retailers who have worked hard to find innovative ways of helping us reuse our bags."

The British Retail Consortium urged customers to help stores by remembering to take stronger "bags for life" on shopping trips and, when they had to take them, reusing lighter carriers on five or six shopping trips before returning them for recycling.

The Environment minister, Jane Kennedy, said the "great progress" made showed that the national reliance on carrier bags was diminishing: "It also puts retailers well on the way to meeting the ambitious 50 per cent reduction in the number of carrier bags that they have pledged to reach by the end of May this year."

Later, Defra confirmed that it had not abandoned the threat of a ban on free plastic bags. "The powers are there in the Climate Change Act to introduce a charge, but, particularly in the current climate, we don't believe introducing a charge would be the right option," a spokeswoman said. "It would be a significant burden for retailers. But that's not to say we have abandoned the possibility of introducing a charge; at the moment, the voluntary approach seems to be working."

Cotton and jute: The alternatives to plastic

Cotton and jute bags have become fashionable as shoppers seek to replace plastic carriers with more eco-friendly alternatives. Sales of jute bags alone increased from around 100,000 in 2006 to 7.4 million last year, according to Wrap. The most famous "eco-bag" is the Anya Hindmarch "I'm not a plastic bag" bag, constructed from reusable cotton. Superdrug's £2.99 cotton shopper, released for the 30th anniversary of the Prince's Trust, caught the headlines when Kate Moss was pictured carrying one, while Tesco and Sainsbury's have also released green bags. Stronger "bags for life", intended to be re-used several times, are sold by supermarkets, while many swisher stores are dispensing paper bags with the implication that they are more eco-friendly.

So which bag is the least harmful? "A very difficult question to answer," replied Richard Swannell, Wrap's director of retail programmes. "The best thing you can do to help the environment is to re-use your bag. If you buy a bag for life and then don't re-use it that is a disaster for the environment."

9.9bn

The number of plastic bags dispensed last year, down from 13.4bn in 2007.

Any solution to global climate change will eventually have to involve the whole globe, not just the richest countries.

That's why deals like the one announced Tuesday between Pasadena's eSolar and the Indian conglomerate Acme Group are essential to any truly green global future. ESolar will sell Acme 1,000 megawatts worth of solar thermal technology, so that the latter can build a network of solar power plants in India's northern state of Haryana.

"India is an enormous electricity market with enormous demand for growth," said Rob Rogan, vice president of corporate communications for eSolar. "We see this as our chance to be part of a long-term renewable energy solution in India."

To date, most wind and solar power has been deployed in the rich, industrialized nations. A 2008 report found that the world's developed countries had installed 207 gigawatts of renewable-power generation, excluding large hydro. That's only a few percent of the rich countries' power generation, but it's a lot more than the 88 gigawatts of clean power that had been built in the developing world.

Now, even with the Obama-led United States looking increasingly green-friendly, that trend could reverse. Falling renewable-energy costs and the desire to use domestic energy sources have helped green tech make inroads in fast-growing countries. Renewable-energy investments jumped 91 percent in 2007 in China. and India expects add 6 gigawatts of wind power between 2007 and 2012.

Here we present five of the largest green tech projects that have broken ground, or plan to, in 2009. Each one of them is slated to be among the largest green-tech projects in the world. Though each is as big as a large coal plant, your average fossil fuel plant will generate more kilowatt-hours because they can burn round the clock every day the year, not just when the sun is shining or the wind blowing.

(It's difficult to find out the exact number and size of solar, wind and geothermal projects in the developing world: The English-language paper trail is disappointingly thin. If you know about other projects or initiatives that are planned or complete, let us know in the Comments section, so we can add them.)

Leyte Geothermal Field
Location: Leyte, Philippines
Current capacity: 708.5 megawatts
Planned capacity: 708.5 megawatts
The jumble of tectonic plates underneath the Philippines has created the perfect situation for tapping geothermal power, particularly at the five-plant array of sites near Leyte. Geothermal development has gone so well that a major energy producer swore off coal in January of this year, choosing to buy into the government-run geothermal company, Energy Development Corporation, instead.

Geothermal power has already had marked success in the developing world, as can be seen in the chart. That's because, when the geological conditions are right, geothermal can be downright cheap.  (Chart: Marin Katusa, Chief Investment Strategist, Casey Research Group)

Suzlon Wind Farm
Location: Near Dhule, India
Current capacity: 650 megawatts
Planned capacity: 1,000 megawatts
Estimated completion date: 2010
Built by Suzlon, a homegrown Indian energy compay, the Suzlon wind farm near Dhule will be the world's largest when it's completed in 2010. Already, it's creeping up on Florida Light and Power's Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, which has a capacity of 735 megawatts. It's the brainchild of Tulsi Tanti, Suzlon's founder and something of an international hero — but not everyone is happy about Tanti's low-cost approach to wind-farm development. Der Spiegel reported that the farmers who toil under the giant turbines are demanding more money for their land. "If Suzlon refuses to pay, the farmers block the access routes with their buffaloes," the magazine wrote.
(Image: flickr/ramkrsna)

Really old tennis players remember the days when tennis balls came in a three-ball can. Those days are gone. So are the cans. Since 1978 when plastic bottles came into use, tennis balls and an increasing number of other products have been packaged in containers made from recycled plastic. Today it's hard to decide whether the triangular recycling symbol on the bottom of a plastic container means the container is recyclable or was recycled already. (It's the former.) The technical name for the plastic in tennis ball and soft drink containers is a mouthful: polyethylene terephthalate. PET is easier to say.

The other big recycled plastic is HDPE (milk, detergent, shampoo), which made up more than 50 percent of the recycled bottles in 1998. Together, PET and HDPE accounted for more than 99 percent of the recycled bottles.

I searched and searched and despite finding many, many web sites on recycling plastics, I couldn't find one that described what takes place when plastic is recycled. So, I'll tell you how it "used" to be done for PET.

Although the process must vary from recycler to recycler, it probably is about the same, give or take the order. As with other recycling activities, the process begins when consumers put their plastics into the recycling system at a centralized collection facility or at curbside. Then the plastics may or may not be separated by color, flattened and baled for delivery. Today maybe they even have a way to separate by type. You know, by soda bottles, milk bottles, yogurt containers, pudding cups and what-have-you.

In addition to the main plastic bottle, you've got plastic and aluminum caps, paper labels, plastic labels that you can't rip off with a pliers, and glue strong enough to hold the nose tiles on the space shuttle Challenger during re-entry. Some soda containers come with a plastic bottom called a cup. Recyclers like it when the bales come separated by type and color (mostly clear or green) because it makes further separation easier.

Upon arrival, bales are split open and then may be flattened. One way of handling the bottles is to shred them to reduce them to odd-shaped flakes of about a half-inch or less. Once shredded, the plastic flakes can go to an air machine that blows off and separates label paper and plastic from the flakes. Then the flakes are washed again so that the heavier "cup" bottom plastic sinks while the flakes float. Another wash tank removes glue, and then the flakes are dried. After drying, flakes go through a separator where an electrostatic charge "pushes" the aluminum from caps away from the plastic.