In an effort to amp up its power supply, South Africa has accepted bids from 19 investors for renewable energy projects, the primary focus on solar and wind.

It’s not often I get to blog about two major developments in a row for migration away from harmful energy sources. Last week it was Japan’s shutting down of its last nuclear power reactor. This week, it’s South Africa’s distancing of itself from coal-powered electricity.

In an effort to amp up its power supply, South Africa has a goal of adding 3,725 MW of renewable energy to its national power grid by 2016. To that end, the country has accepted bids on 19 renewable energy projects.

Currently, South Africa depends on coal for 85 percent of its electricity.

Though a pursuit of green energy in general is hopefully at the good-green heart of this initiative, it evidently also stems from the need for more power to fuel an economy dependent on the mining industry.

Four years ago, platinum and gold mines were shut down because the country did not have the power to run them. South Africa reportedly lost billions of dollars in the process.

As reported by Reuters:

The process of adding more renewable power to the grid has dragged on for years, raising doubts about the government’s ability to deliver, but developers have commended the ministry for how smoothly the recent bidding process has proceeded.

South Africa wants to use the green energy drive to boost job creation through manufacturing and by making the need to source materials locally a key requirement.

The 19 selected renewable energy projects were selected from 79 bids received by the deadline date March 5, 2012. The majority of the selected projects focus on wind and solar energy development. Bidders on these projects now have until the end of the year to prove they are financially viable.

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy coal, Renewable Energy, Solar, South Africa, Wind

All eyes will be on Japan this summer to see how they make it work nuke power-free, the first time in more than 40 years! If all goes well, could it prove just the beacon of hope we need to model the same?

In an inspiring move that could help change the game of nuclear power, Japan has shut down its last nuclear power plant. Though not considered any official declaration that nuclear power is a done deal in Japan, opponents of the move are concerned it could prove what many of us already know – we simply don’t need it.

The last Japanese nuclear power plant to shut down is one of 54 throughout the country – a domino-effect of shutdowns in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year. The earthquake and tsunami to follow compromised three of four reactors at the Fukushima plant, resulting in the largest nuclear radiation disaster since Chernobyl.

The government shut-downs are in reaction to a Japanese public understandably concerned about the safety of nuclear power. With 104 of our own nuclear power plants in the U.S., millions of Americans certainly share their concerns.

As I blogged last year in the wake of the crisis:

I choose to live in Los Angeles despite the earthquake danger and despite the probability of a tsunami to follow. But now I need to factor in a third concession that was previously off my radar – living in L.A.despite the potential for radiation poisoning from nuclear power plants compromised in my earthquake- and tsunami-prone state.

I look at the level of concern we’re feeling for radiation from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan being carried via the jet stream to the West Coast. That radiation has the entire Pacific Ocean to cross! What of the radiation danger if and when “the big one” hits California with a tsunami to follow?

Prior to the shutdowns, Japan depended on nuclear power for more than 30 percent of its electricity. On the flip side, they rely on renewable energy for 10 percent of their electricity.

All eyes will be on Japan this summer to see how they make it work nuke power-free, the first time in more than 40 years! If all goes well, could it prove just the beacon of hope we need to model the same?

Meredith Simonds Nuclear Power Fukushima, Japan, nuclear, Nuclear Power, nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors, Renewable Energy

This week for free, or any other week for a nominal fee, get out there and enjoy American beauty at its best.

Sunday not only marked this year’s eco-conscious Earth Day celebration, but it also kicked off the start of National Park Week. What better way to appreciate the planet than free admission to the national park nearest you – or furthest, if you’re feeling particularly adventurous.

April 21-29, 2012, is National Park Week, which calls attention to land conservation of 84 million acres protected in our 397 national parks. It’s free admission all week long, though it’s also a good time to remind you, admission is nominal all year long. Entrance to Grand Canyon National Park, for example, is just $12 per person…unless there’s a carload of you, in which case everyone gets in for just twenty-five bucks.

We officially have Woodrow Wilson to thank for our National Park Service, which he established in 1916. However, it is the artist George Catlin who is credited with the idea, as he noted that the lands he was traveling – for his painting of Native Americans – should be preserved “by some great protecting policy of government … in a magnificent park … A nation’s park, containing man and beast in all the wild and freshness of their nature’s beauty!”

From painting pictures, to hiking mountains, to rafting rolling rivers, the possibilities are numerous for enjoying the beauty of nature in our national parks. This week for free, or any other week for a nominal fee, get out there and enjoy American beauty at its best.

To find a park near you (or clear across the country!) go to NPS.gov.

Meredith Simonds Green Living America, Conservation, George Catlin, land conservation, National Park Service, National Park Week, nature, Woodrow Wilson

In January, the San Onofre nuclear power plant was shut down due to the leaking of radioactive gas related to the "vibrating" and "rubbing" together of the tubes within the reactors' steam generators. The bigger problem is, no one seems to know why.

Last time I blogged about the San Onofre nuclear power plant in Southern California, it was over concern that its operation raises a red flag in my earthquake- and tsunami-prone state. That was more than a year ago, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in Japan. But since then, San Onofre has been shut down – a temporary fix for evidently inexplicable wear-and-tear of parts in both on-site reactors.

In January, it was discovered that tubes within the reactors’ steam generators were wearing out prematurely. In recent days, investigators into the matter received reports that this premature wear is due to the “vibrating” and “rubbing” together of the tubes against one another. The bigger problem is, no one seems to know why.

Less than two years old, said tubes should by no means have reached their breaking point. But in one reactor unit, the wear was so bad that radioactive gas was released.

Since the cause of the wear-and-tear has yet to be determined, there is no plan to re-open the plant. Though this is news I’d love to celebrate, it’s a double-edged sword for a couple of reasons.

First of all, we could be looking at rolling blackouts this summer if we do not get San Onofre back up, as it powers 1.4 million homes. Secondly, it’s frightening to consider how little the people running our nuclear power plants actually understand about how they work. I wonder if this is the same team of experts tasked with developing the new generation of nuclear reactors.

Meredith Simonds Nuclear Power Fukushima, Japan, nuclear, Nuclear Power, nuclear power plant, radiation, San Onofre, Southern California

EPA's New Source rule states that all new power plants must limit carbon emissions to no more than 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. This essentially renders any new coal-fueled power plants out of the question, as they emit an average of 1,800 mwh.

As I blogged a few days ago, it’s been two steps forward, one step back when it comes to dirty coal in recent months. But last week’s announcement from the EPA makes up for all that. Though some say it goes too far, and others not far enough, the EPA’s “New Source” rule seems to me a big deal indeed.

The New Source rule is one that regulates new power plants. Specifically, it states that all new power plants must limit carbon emissions to no more than 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. This essentially renders any new coal-fueled power plants out of the question, as they emit an average of 1,800 mwh. Though processes do exist for “scrubbing” or “sequestering” emissions so as to ensure coal-powered plants stay within the limit, equipping plants with this technology is an expensive endeavor not likely to be pursued.

Granted, this does not mean that power plants fueled by alternative fuels will be all the rage. Natural gas is all the rage, as its price has fallen dramatically in recent months. However, as pointed out by Grist‘s David Roberts:

Some day the natural gas bubble will pop and prices will return to earth. When that happens, it will be extremely helpful to have this rule in place, since its means industry won’t be able to go backward to coal. It will have to move forward into renewable energy.

What of existing power plants, you wonder? Look for those plans post-election season, when the Obama administration need not worry about the reaction of voters whose states are dependent on the coal industry (i.e., fearful of coal plants being shut down to meet new regulations).

Meredith Simonds coal Carbon, carbon emissions, coal, dirty coal, EPA, Natural Gas, New Source rule, Obama

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the EPA actually overstepped its authority in revoking Arch Coal's permit to operate one of the larges mountaintop removal operations in the country.

When it comes to coal in recent months, it’s two steps forward, one step back.

First came news in January that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked a permit that would have allowed the second-largest coal production company to operate one of the largest mountain-top removal companies in the country.

Then, just a couple of weeks ago came news that in November/December of 2011, power generated by coal decreased to 40 percent – it’s lowest in more than 30 years!

Now for the step back.

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the EPA actually overstepped its authority in revoking Arch Coal’s permit (referenced above) – a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It’s unclear what the next step may be in the further blocking of this new mountaintop removal operation.

Delayed since 2007, clearly there are a whole host of things that can (and should) keep this project from moving forward, especially considering that our reliance on coal is diminishing. Granted, it’s the increased competitiveness of natural gas to which this may be partially attributed. But as reported by the Environmental News Network: “There is another contributing factor: over a hundred, 106 to be exact, coal plants closed between January 2010 and February 2012. The latest coal plants to close are in Chicago, the Fisk Plant and the Crawford Plant. The number of coal plants closed represents 162 million tons of carbon a year (nine percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet).”

Bottom line: In the slow build to increased development of renewable energy sources, we are better served relying on natural gas – a cleaner alternative to dirty coal.

Meredith Simonds coal Arch Coal, coal, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, mountaintop removal

In 2011, solar installations on homes rose by 11 percent over the previous year, and non-residential by more than 28 percent.

Considering that the sun provides enough solar energy in a single day to power the energy needs of the entire planet for a full year, aggressive investments in solar seem a no-brainer. However, like all other renewable energy options, our investments in solar power pale in comparison to that of fossil fuels. But as reported by Treehugger, the solar market is picking up.

According to a report released by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Initiatives Association, solar installations rose significantly in 2011. Solar installations on homes rose by 11 percent over the previous year, and non-residential by more than 28 percent. In megawatts, that’s 1,855 installed solar power compared to 887 megawatts in 2010.

Add to that the projection that installations are expected to rise 35-50 percent in 2012 and it’s clear: solar is gaining momentum.

If you are considering a solar installation – for your home or non-residential building – we have a number of resources that can help you decide on the route that’s right for you.

As you probably know, installing solar panels can be an expensive endeavor, so it is imperative that you do your homework.

In today’s market, a five kilowatt system would cost around $35-45,000, if a homeowner were to pay for everything out-of-pocket. Fortunately, many utilities offer generous incentives to homeowners who want to install solar arrays, not to mention the federal tax credit program that can offset up 30% the total costs. Solar panel leasing is also an option.

Are you in the market for solar panels? Why or why not?

Meredith Simonds Solar energy, fossil fuels, Solar, solar energy, solar panel installation, Solar Panels, solar power installation company

Whether it's before you start chugging on the green beer, or part of the party-time festivities, turn this St. Patrick's Day into a day of awareness for green living all year long.

If you really want to get into the green spirit of things this St. Patrick’s Day, take the time to make sure you’re living green-as-can-be every other day of the year. Here at AltFuelsNow.com, we’ve assembled a rather comprehensive green living checklist that covers every aspect of your life – from home, to school, to work.

1) Home Improvements. Major upgrades to your house will do little to increase its resale value in today’s housing market. However, there are a number of ways to make small home improvements here and there that will prove immediately invaluable investments for your family and the environment:

• Eco-Friendly Appliances
• Eco-Friendly Bed and Bath
• Eco-Friendly Kitchen
• Formaldehyde-Free Cabinets
• Recycled Kitchen Countertops
• Energy Efficient Lighting Solutions
• Organic, Natural and Dye-Free Fabrics
• Sustainable and Recycled Flooring Products
• Eco-Friendly Paint
• Environmentally Friendly Wallpaper
• Reclaimed Wood Furniture

2) Everyday Items. Whether you buy ready-made products or the materials to do-it-yourself, explore all the ways you can green your everyday shopping habits:

• Organic Food
• Green Beauty Products
• Eco-Friendly Clothing
• Green Baby
• Green Pets
• Eco-Friendly Landscaping
• Non-Toxic Cleaning Products
• Green Office and School Supplies

3) Vacation. How you travel, what you bring, and what you do when you get there are all worthy of your eco-conscious consideration:

• Green Travel, From Airlines to Cruise Ships
• Green Camping

Meredith Simonds Green Living green, green awareness, green living, Green Living Checklist, St. Patrick's Day

The WMO's new weather data system will not only collect data on weather, climate and water, but also interpret this data for the optimization of agricultural practices (i.e., helping to improve food security worldwide).

Though climate talk seems reserved for the back burner these days (no pun intended), there is some promising behind-the-scenes action. Most recently, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced its development of a new weather data system aimed at collecting the kind of data we need to navigate a warming world.

The WMO is an arm of the United Nations, meaning this new weather data system will have global reach.  As reported by the Environmental News Network, this system will not only collect data on weather, climate and water, but also interpret this data for the optimization of agricultural practices (i.e., helping to improve food security worldwide).

This latest development is a nice supplement to news at the end of last year that the U.N. reached an agreement on how to handle the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol at the end of 2012.

As I blogged in December:

The Kyoto Protocol has now been extended to 2017. Dovetailing this development is news that the same countries have agreed to draft and sign a new agreement by 2015, intended to replace Kyoto and go into effect in 2020. It’s unclear what framework will apply between 2017 and 2020, but it’s probably safe to assume Kyoto would be extended the additional three years until the new agreement goes into effect.

In a nutshell, the Kyoto Protocol sets limits on the greenhouse gases participating nations are allowed to emit. Unfortunately, two of the world’s biggest emitters are not participants – the United States and China – which is the very reason for Canada’s dramatic announcement yesterday.

It will be interesting to see how data from the WMO’s new weather system may inform the new climate agreement.

Meredith Simonds Climate Change climate, Climate change, climate talk, Kyoto Protocol, U.N., United Nations, WMO, World Meteorological Organization

What do you think? Is nuclear power a safe energy source or should it be avoided at all cost?

Nuclear reactors more than 30 years old probably make many of us nervous, especially since that describes most of the 104 nuke facilities used to provide a fifth of U.S. electricity today. Where some of us may be split on the issue, though, is exactly what should be done about it.

Possibility number one is the direction we appear to be headed – building new nuclear power reactors.

Just this month, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the first new nuke power reactors since 1978 – two of them, in fact, at Georgia’s Plant Voglte. It’s a $14 billion project backed by a federal loan guarantee.

Possibility number two (and certainly own personal preference) – phase out the use of nuclear power altogether.

Though I already objected to the threat of nuclear radiation prior to the Fukushima disaster in 2011, as a California resident, it sealed the deal in my book. As I blogged last year:

I look at the level of concern we’re feeling for radiation from the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan being carried via the jet stream to the West Coast. That radiation has the entire Pacific Ocean to cross! What of the radiation danger if and when “the big one” hits California with a tsunami to follow?

Of course, my personal opinion matters not at all to the powers that be. Thanks to a 4-1 approval by the NRC, Westinghouse Electricity Co., is building two twin 1,100 megawatt reactors – also knows as AP1000s – for Southern Co., the company that will owns and operates the Georgia plant.

Westinghouse says these two new reactors will utilize a new design aimed at preventing a Fukushima-like disaster. Let’s hope they’re right, as the company says it has 20 other new nuclear power projects in the works, 14 of which will (if approved) utilize the same new reactor design.

What do you think? Is nuclear power a safe energy source or should it be avoided at all cost?

Meredith Simonds Nuclear Power Fukushima, Georgia, NRC, nuclear, Nuclear Power, nuclear reactors, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Plant Vogtle, reactors, Southern Co, Westinghouse Electric

From your sweetheart, to your mom, to your best friend, just about anyone in your life is bound to love Valentine's Day gifts from your green heart to theirs.

Whether you keep it simple with one or two of these ideas, or you go for the whole shebang, here’s a plan for turning Valentine’s Day into a daylong affair for the green-at-heart sweetheart in your life.

Start with an oldie but a goodie – breakfast in bed. Mix it up, though, with a homemade meal made from all organic, fair-trade ingredients. Serve it on a tray with fresh flowers or foliage cut from your own backyard garden, along with a Valentine’s Day card, either homemade or one made from recycled paper and non-toxic ink.

For mid-day, arrange for a delivery of an organic, fair-trade bouquet of flowers or potted plant. Steer clear of roses, as 80 percent of roses in the U.S. market are grown in and shipped from South America. Your safest best is to go through your local florist, requesting an organic, locally-grown, in-season arrangement.

For dinner, go out for a nice meal at the closest organic restaurant you can find. If it proves too far, make dinner at home. Be sure to serve with it an organic fair-trade wine for a meal-at-home (by vegetable-wax candlelight, of course). Oh, and don’t the dessert of fair-trade organic chocolate, either as an ingredient in a delectable dish, or on its own.

During or after dinner, present your Valentine with the gift-wrapped goods – organic, fair-trade perfume or cologne; sustainable, fair-trade jewelry; and/or sexy undergarments made from natural, organic fabrics.

Of course, a number of these ideas work wonders for all the Valentine’s in your life. From your sweetheart, to your  mom, to your best friend, just about anyone in your life is bound to love Valentine’s Day gifts from your green heart to theirs.

Meredith Simonds Green Living cologne, dinner, fair-trade, flowers, green valentines day, natural, organic, perfume, recycled, sustainable, Valentine, Valentine's Day

Thanks to a unanimous vote by the California Air Resources Board, the state must have 1.4 million electric or hybrid vehicles on the road by 2025, which translates into 1 in 7 new cars.

As recently reported, consumers have evidently lost interest in electric vehicles. But new auto emission rules announced today should help remedy that. Though limited to California, the state tends to lead the nation in auto emission standards.

Thanks to a unanimous vote by the California Air Resources Board, the state must have 1.4 million electric or hybrid vehicles on the road by 2025, which translates into 1 in 7 new cars.

Beyond the requirement of 1.4 million electric or hybrid vehicles, by 2025 the same regulations also call for:

• 75 percent reduction in smog-forming pollutants
• 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

If other states follow previously established patterns, we can expect a number of them to follow suit. Consider that 14 states have previously adopted California’s smog emissions rules and 10 states its zero-emissions mandates.

All of this stands to bode well for the electric vehicle industry. As I blogged earlier this month:

As reported by the Environmental News Network, in 2009, 48 percent of those surveyed were extremely or very interested in PEV’s. In 2010, that number dropped to 44 percent. And in 2011, that number fell again to 40 percent.

Beyond consumer reservations regarding the driving range and the state of the technology, the survey showed that price was at the top of the list of cited objections. The same is true of critics of California’s new regulations. However, the California Air Resources Board says their research shows otherwise. Though the cost of vehicles may go up from $1,400 to $1,900, consumers probably stand to save $6,000 in gas over the lifetime of the vehicle.

Meredith Simonds Electric Vehicles auto emissions, California, California Air Resources Board, California auto emissions, electric vehicles, greenhouse gas emissions, Hybrid Vehicles, smog, vehicles

hydraulic fracturing involves the mixing of water with chemicals and sand. This combination is blasted into the earth, whereby the sand holds the fractures apart so that natural gas can seep up out of the earth.

Slowly but surely, one government after another is banning the hydraulic fracturing process. Okay, it’s only three government bodies so far, but still, we are making progress. Last week came news that Bulgaria has banned fracking throughout the country.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process by which natural gas is extracted from the earth. Though previously deemed safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency some 7 years ago, the EPA recently announced results from a new investigation that turned up findings to the contrary. Based on regional tests in Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA now says fracking likely does cause groundwater pollution.

France banned fracking last year, as did the state of New Jersey.

Specifically, hydraulic fracturing involves the mixing of water with chemicals and sand. This combination is blasted into the earth, whereby the sand holds the fractures apart so that natural gas can seep up out of the earth.

The Bulgarian ban on fracking – by a vote of 166 to 6 – puts a damper on Chevron’s plans to explore the country for natural gas opportunities. Any violators of the fracking ban in Bulgaria will face a fine of $65 million.

As I blogged at news of New Jersey’s fracking ban last year:

“Though environmentalists have long expressed concerns over the chemical contamination of our earth and water through the fracking process, the BP oil spill last year increased scrutiny.

“If the drilling industry isn’t responsible enough to regulate themselves on oil – cutting corners to inflate profits – it stands to reason they could be doing the same with natural gas.”

Meredith Simonds Natural Gas Bulgaria, EPA, fracking, France, gas, hydraulic fracturing, Natural Gas, New Jersey, Wyoming

Select photos from the EPA State of the Environment Photo Project will have a chance to be in the nationwide traveling exhibit starting in April 2012.

You probably already do it just about every day, in all kinds of places and all kinds of ways – taking pictures of the world around you. Why not focus your efforts a bit and zoom in on shots for a good cause – the environment?

The Environmental Protection Agency is hosting a photo project challenging Americans to document the “State of the Environment.” It’s an undertaking inspired by a similar project back in the seventies when the EPA actually hired photojournalists to document our country’s environmental state, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Evidently, the seventies project, entitled “Documerica,” turned up some pretty sobering views on pollution and hazardous conditions across the nation. This go-around, it’s being reported that most participants are sending in the prettiest of pics. That presents a wide open window of opportunity for you to go out into your community and seek out environmental “violations” of sorts that we need do to know about.

Select photos will have a chance to be in the nationwide traveling exhibit featured by EPA and the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration starting in April 2012.

In addition to original photos, you may also participate in the Locations challenge, in which you duplicate the same shot, in the same location, as a picture featured in Documerica three decades ago.

To learn more about submission guidelines through Flickr.com, visit the official blog of the State of the Environment Photo Project.

Meredith Simonds Environment, Solar Documerica, environment, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, State of the Environment

Consumers cite three main reasons they're losing interest in PEV's - price, technology and range.

According to the most recent Electric Vehicle Consumer Survey, interest in plug-in electric vehicles has declined over the past two years. Though the reasons cited are legitimate concerns, it seems to be public perception that has changed, not the promise of PEV’s themselves.

As reported by the Environmental News Network, in 2009, 48 percent of those surveyed were extremely or very interested in PEV’s. In 2010, that number dropped to 44 percent. And in 2011, that number fell again to 40 percent.

Specifically, consumers cite three main reasons for objecting to PEV’s:

1) Price. Granted plug-in electric vehicles are expensive compared to their gas-powered counterparts. But PEV’s are cheaper than ever.

2) Technology. For something that started in the mid-1800′s, it is hard to believe electric vehicles haven’t come further. However, PEV technology has grown by leaps and bounds in recent times, particularly in the last two years.

3) Range. Though PEV’s cannot travel long distances relative to gas-powered vehicles, again, the technology is advancing toward longer and longer distances all the time.

In other words, it is not any lack of advancement in the PEV industry that is to blame for declining interest on the part of consumers. On the contrary, it’s an industry that is making advances every day. Instead, it is consumer perception that has changed which, in turn, could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. The less expressed consumer interest in PEV’s, the lower the demand. The lower the demand, the more expensive they will be and the less effort that will go into advancing this eco-friendlier alternative to gas-powered vehicles.

What do you think? Why are consumers losing interest in electric vehicles?

Meredith Simonds Electric Vehicles consumers, electric, Electric Vehicle Consumer Survey, electric vehicles, plug-in electric vehicles, price, range, technology

For better or worse, the U.N., 'fracking' and the Keystone XL Pipeline dominated the green-geared news in 2011.

1) On Heels of Kyoto Extension, Canada Pulls Out of Protocol. On the heels of the U.N.’s climate change agreement came sobering news that Canada is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Though the Environment Minister notes the country’s genuine frustration that Kyoto cannot work without U.S. and China participation, it sounds like money could be at the heart of the issue. If Canada didn’t pull out now – giving one year’s notice – they would have had to pay $14 billion in penalties next year for failing to meet their own emissions targets.

2) EPA Says ‘Fracking’ Likely Pollutes Groundwater. Last year, the EPA announced plans to review the hydraulic fracturing industry. Well, the verdict is in and it’s a big one. Contrary to previous findings, the EPA says “fracking” is the likely cause of groundwater pollution. Though this finding is evidently based on regional results in a small Wyoming community, it speaks volumes to the concessions the federal government is now making regarding this controversial issue.

3) Obama Pushes Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline Until After 2012 Election. Though his motivation is certainly suspect in light of the upcoming election, President Obama’s decision to extend the review and approval process of the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline is welcome news indeed. Of course, by the time the 12- to 18-month review process is over, so will be the 2012 elections. In other words, politically, it is probably in Obama’s best interest to avoid making a decision altogether, at least until he’s re-elected or it’s not his responsibility anymore.

4) New Jersey Leads Nation in First Ban on Fracking. If and when we see a worldwide ban on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” New Jersey gets credit for leading the fight. By a clear majority, the state’s legislators have approved a statewide fracking ban on this controversial process used to extract natural gas from the earth. The state senate voted 31-1 in favor of the ban, and the assembly 56-11.

5) U.N. Predicts 77 Percent of World’s Energy From Renewables by 2050. Representatives from 194 nations approved U.N. findings that as much as 77 percent of the world’s power could come from renewable energy by the year 2050. These findings are based on the conclusions of more than 120 researchers of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – research outlined in the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN).

Meredith Simonds Solar Canada, fracking, hydraulic fracturing, Keystone XL Pipeline, Kyoto, Renewable Energy, renewables

From tracking the top green search trends of 2011, to a new $94 million investment in solar power, Google continues to play a high-profile role on the eco-homefront.

On the heels of the announcement last month nixing its “Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal” initiative, it’s good to see Google ending the year on a couple of good green notes. From tracking the top green search trends of 2011, to a new $94 million investment in solar power, Google continues to play a high-profile role on the eco-homefront.

Wondering what’s on the minds of eco-conscious consumers like yourself? Google knows, as trends reveal the top green searches of the year include:

• Sustainable development
• Sustainable energy
• Sustainable agriculture
• How to compost
• Solar
• Nuclear power
• Wind energy
• Reusable bags
• Reusable diapers
• Reusable water bottles
• e waste recycling

The question is, how is this helpful? Personally, as a blogger, it helps me focus my efforts on topics readers are most interested in. And I think that speaks to the larger impact of this type of data. Consumer interests drive the marketplace. And if interest is particularly high in reusable diapers or e waste recycling, for example, expect to see a marketplace gearing itself more toward those interests.

As for its recent $94 million investment, Google’s latest solar power project will fund four solar power plants near Sacramento, California. The power will be sent straight to the grid where it will provide enough energy to power 13,000 homes.

Again, these are both welcome developments from Google, as it recently announced plans to discontinue the “Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal” initiative which launched in 2007 with the aim of investing in the research and development necessary to drive down the cost of renewable energy until it’s cheaper than coal. But now with a new CEO at the helm, it looks like the greening of Google is getting an overhaul, but surely with fewer green discontinuations than developments.

Meredith Simonds Green Living google, green search trends, Nuclear Power, Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal, Solar, sustainable, wind energy

The Kyoto Protocol has now been extended to 2017. Dovetailing this development is news that the same countries have agreed to draft and sign a new agreement by 2015, intended to replace Kyoto and go into effect in 2020.

As you may recall, participating countries at last year’s climate change talks failed to hammer out a plan for dealing with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, set to expire at the end of 2012. So that was at the forefront of this year’s recent talks in Durban, South Africa, where some 200 countries managed to reach an agreement.

The Kyoto Protocol has now been extended to 2017. Dovetailing this development is news that the same countries have agreed to draft and sign a new agreement by 2015, intended to replace Kyoto and go into effect in 2020. It’s unclear what framework will apply between 2017 and 2020, but it’s probably safe to assume Kyoto would be extended the additional three years until the new agreement goes into effect.

In a nutshell, the Kyoto Protocol sets limits on the greenhouse gases participating nations are allowed to emit. Unfortunately, two of the world’s biggest emitters are not participants – the United States and China – which is the very reason for Canada’s dramatic announcement yesterday.

On the heels of the U.N.’s climate change agreement came sobering news that Canada is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. Though the Environment Minister notes the country’s genuine frustration that Kyoto cannot work without U.S. and China participation, it sounds like money could be at the heart of the issue. If Canada didn’t pull out now – giving one year’s notice – they would have had to pay $14 billion in penalties next year for failing to meet their own emissions targets.

Meredith Simonds Climate Change Canada, Climate change, climate talks, Durban, emissions, greenhouse gases, Kyoto Protocol, South Africa, U.N.

Last year, the EPA announced plans to review the hydraulic fracturing industry. Well, the verdict is in and it’s a big one. Contrary to previous findings, the EPA says “fracking” is the likely cause of groundwater pollution. Though this finding is evidently based on regional results in a small Wyoming community, it speaks volumes to the concessions the federal government is now making regarding this controversial issue.

The EPA previously reviewed the fracking industry some 7 years ago. The official results showed no threat, thus no need for federal regulation. However, critics have long suspected political maneuvering played an unfortunate role in that decision.

Now, it seems, the political climate is ripe for a change in the environmentally-responsible direction, at least when it comes to the natural gas drilling industry.

Specifically, the EPA’s most recent findings are based on groundwater tests in Pavillion, Wyoming, where residents say their water wells reek of chemicals. So it is of little surprise that Wyoming, last year, joined the growing list of states that require drilling companies to reveal the chemicals used in the fracking process.

In the wake of this latest EPA announcement, it will be interesting to see how many states take their fracking stance a step further, perhaps following in the footsteps of New Jersey, the first to ban the fracking process throughout the state.

Now we must wait and see what comes of the second phase of the EPA review process – submitting the findings for peer review and public comment.

Meredith Simonds Natural Gas EPA, fracking, hydraulic fracturing, Natural Gas, New Jersey, Wyoming

As though we need yet another reason to launch criticism at big banks, a new report confirms they are among the biggest investors in coal. So if you bank with any on the list, and consider yourself an environmentalist, you may want to move your money to a more environmentally-friendly community bank or credit union.

As reported by Treehugger, a new BankTrack analysis shows JPMorgan Chase leading the pack of big banks that are making investments in coal, including dirty mountaintop removal operations.

While many on the list are foreign banks, you’ll recognize a number of them for the billions that Americans have invested in them (and their dirty coal ways):

1. JPMorgan Chase

2. Citi

3. Bank of America

4. Morgan Stanley

5. Barclays

6. Deutsche Bank

7. Royal Bank of Scotland

8. BNP Paribas

9. Credit Suisse

10. UBS

11. Goldman Sachs

12. Bank of China

13. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

14. Credit Agricole / Calyon

15. UniCredit / HVB

16. China Construction Bank

17. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group

18. Societe Generale

19. Wells Fargo

20. HSBC

This is a big wake-up call for me, personally, as I bank with both Chase and Wells Fargo. I was tempted to move my money on Bank Transfer day – in the wake of their proposed monthly debit card programs – but then both Chase and Wells Fargo scrapped the idea. But I imagine this latest news will be just the motivation I need to change my banking ways.

What about you? Will your bank’s investment in coal inspire you to change banks? Why or why not?

Meredith Simonds Green Living banking, big banks, Chase, coal