Want to save the planet and your wallet at the same time? Here are some tips:

1. Bring a bag. Saving a few cents on your grocery bill might not be incentive enough to switch to reusable bags, but getting charged extra for plastic could be.
2. Go paperless.“Going paperless is usually a condition of getting the most favorable terms,” says Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. You might be able to get a better interest rate or secure extra reward points.
3. Buy green goods. A handful of credit card and other reward programs are directed at consumers who are buying green products.
4. Recycle. Figuring out where and how to recycle some goods can be tricky, so some companies are beginning to offer free recycling of defunct gadgets and extending postage-paid shipping.

Read More >>.

Kristy Wesh Green Living green goods, recycle, reusable bags, Save Money

If you’re not sure what to make of this whole climate bill debacle of recent days, join the club. In trying to make sense of what one would think is a straightforward means of pursuing clean energy, I just read through nearly a dozen articles for a comprehensive perspective on why it is so much easier said than done. And, most importantly, why that may be a good thing.

THE GIST OF IT

The much-anticipated Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Climate Bill Proposal was scheduled to be officially announced on Monday, April 26.

Days before the big release, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested that immigration reform would take precedence over passing new climate legislation.

Senator Graham resented Reid’s position, suggesting it is merely a political ploy intended to capitalize on the country’s sensitivity to immigration issues right now, especially in light of Arizona’s new law requiring police officers to question anyone who may be a suspected illegal immigrant. Presumably Reid has much to gain by rallying behind this issue since he is hurting in the polls of his heavily Hispanic populated state, Nevada.

In response to Reid’s announcement, Graham made one of his own.

If immigration reform gets pushed through the Senate before climate legislation, Graham will drop his support of the climate bill entirely.

Some suggest the Republican Graham has been wavering on the climate issue for some time anyway, feeling the heat from Republicans for supporting a bi-partisan climate bill with the Democratic Kerry and Independent Lieberman. In other words, the suggestion is that Graham is using Reid’s position as a scapegoat of sorts.

Both Kerry and Lieberman say they are still confident about climate legislation. Kerry says Reid promises to bring it to the Senate floor sometime this year. And Graham reportedly will get behind the climate bill once it is no longer tied to immigration reform.

In fact, it may be that we will benefit more from climate legislation taking more time to work its way through the Senate in hopes of strengthening what many consider a weak bill anyway.

As Grist’s Larry Shapiro notes:

“All indications were that the proposed bill would have propped up the coal and power industries with billions of dollars while forcing low and middle-income Americans to pay higher energy costs. The bill also would have stripped EPA and state governments of much their legal authority to implement innovative climate solutions. In short, I’m not sure we’re missing much.”

Meredith Simonds Climate Change, Solar clean energy, climate bill, Graham, Kerry, leiberman, reid

A virus may help lead to a cure for two energy ills: solar power storage and cheaper, cleaner hydrogen fuel production.

MIT researchers engineered a harmless bacterial virus to mimic the way photosynthesis splits water into oxygen and hydrogen. Extracting hydrogen from water using sunlight would allow energy from the sun to be stored as hydrogen, for use later via a fuel cell—not just when the sun is shining. The viral-spawned hydrogen fuel might also be used to power automobiles.

Read More at Smart Planet >>.

Kristy Wesh Solar hydrogen fuel, MIT, Smart Planet, solar energy, solar power storage, virus

Waste-to-energy plants reduce energy costs for homeowners, as well as reliance on oil and gas

Just an hour ago, the thought of converting trash into fuel for heating my home left me a little cold. Then I read The New York Times‘ Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags. Thanks to this in-depth piece exploring Europe’s successful foray into advanced waste-to-energy technology, I must admit I’m warming up to the idea as a supplement to wind and solar here in the States.

Contrary to my preconceived idea of waste-to-energy technology, it’s not a dirty, smelly process at all. In fact, the most successful, respected plants in Europe are situated in residential areas where they are a welcome presence. That’s thanks in part to advancements in filtering and “scrubbing” technology that prevents the most offensive pollutants from being emitted into the air.

In fact, there are 400 waste-to-energy plants throughout Europe, so popular that they have drastically diminished the use of landfills.

Particularly prevalent in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, new waste-to-energy plants are considered a clean alternative fuel source that:

• Cuts down own CO2 and methane emissions from landfills

• Produces 9 times the energy of landfill methane-capture technology

• Imposes strict rules for ensuring that nothing is burned in a waste-to-energy plant if it can be recycled instead

• Reduces energy costs for homeowners, as well as reliance on oil and gas

So why is the U.S. lagging behind in waste-to-energy technology?

Well, it’s partly due to preconceived ideas like mine on the part of most Americans — that turning our trash into fuel just doesn’t sound “clean.” Plus unlike densely-populated Europe where it’s hard to hide the trash, most U.S. landfills are distant from American lives; out of sight, out of mind.

Regarding lack of U.S. interest in waste-to-energy plants, The Times‘ Elisabeth Rosenthal notes the thoughts of Matt Hale, director of the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

“[Hale] said the reasons that waste-to-energy plants had not caught on nationally were the relative abundance of cheap landfills in a large country, opposition from state officials who feared the plants could undercut recycling programs and a ‘negative public perception.’”

Still, it seems we can expect to see further exploration of waste-to-energy technology in America. We already have several dozen waste-t0-energy plants throughout the country that either have been or can be fitted with the new filters and “scrubbers” to reflect the advanced technology.

Plus, a 2009 EPA report states that waste-t0-energy plants are more environmentally responsible than landfills. Thankfully though, we need not rely on the federal government to pursue waste-to-energy technology. “Twenty-four states now classify waste that is burned this way for energy as a renewable fuel,” writes Rosenthal “in many cases eligible for subsidies.”

Meredith Simonds Renewable Energy Denmark, Europe, The New York Times, waste-to-energy plants

Last year the Department of Energy, which co-administers the Energy Star certification program with the EPA, admitted that it allows many companies to certify their goods themselves. That was somewhat worrying, but nothing like what happened earlier this year when government auditors successfully got ludicrously power-hungry designs approved for the Energy Star label. The EPA and Energy Department have responded by announcing a new, stricter certification process.

More at the Consumerist »

Kristy Wesh Conservation, Green Living

In 2009, U.S. wind installations grew but manufacturing slowed.

Though it cites some impressive advancements in the wind power industry, the American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) annual market report also reveals a less-than-impressive rate of manufacturing growth. In Treehugger’s assessment, Matthew McDermott breaks the report down into some “fast facts” to remember about the growth of this vital renewable energy source, including the fact that:

• In 2009 US wind power saw a record number of new installations, bringing an additional 10 GW online – a figure AWEA reminds us is enough to power 2.4 million average homes.

• 36 states now have utility-scale wind power projects.

• Manufacturing continues to grow, with 10 new facilities coming online, 9 expanded, and 20 announced. That said, this growth is at a slower rate than in 2008.

• All 50 states now have jobs in the wind power sector in one form or another, with about 85,000 people employed nationwide.

• The U.S. now has a wind power capacity of 35 GW, sufficient according to AWEA’s calculations to avoid 62 million tons of CO2 emissions annually, or equivalent to taking 10.5 million cars off the road.

After my own review of the report, it is also worth noting that while wind power represents 39 percent of all new generating capacity installed in the U.S. in 2009, wind still provides for just 1.8 percent of our nation’s energy needs.

The AWEA report also points out that based on our current wind capacity, the U.S. is the global leader in wind energy. However, keep in mind that when it comes to manufacturing, China takes the top spot as the world’s number one producer of wind turbines (not to mention solar panels).

In other words, it’s no mystery why the U.S. manufacture of wind energy technology is slow – we outsource those jobs overseas.

Still, it is encouraging to note that 2009 did see a record number of wind power installations. And as the report also reminds us, though wind represents only 1.8 percent of our energy production, renewable energy as a whole now provides for 10.5 percent of U.S. energy needs.

Meredith Simonds Wind Power American Wind Energy Association, annual market report, AWEA, Renewable Energy, Treehugger, Wind

"So-called 'feed-in tariff' bills that have passed in California, are based on the value of the electricity, not on the cost of generation, and, thus, are not high enough to be effective."

Last month I celebrated the greening of Los Angeles in my blog post, California Greening in L.A.: A Dream Come True? Beyond smart water meters and Energy-Star buildings, I expressed excitement about LA Mayor Villaraigosa’s proposed initiative to eliminate the city’s dependence on coal by 202o. As outlined in the proposal, increased use of solar power is key. Yet based on a new report from UCLA that Grist characterizes as “blockbuster,” California solar power (and, in turn, LA) leaves much to be desired without a more aggressive feed-in tariff system.

Six months ago Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a feed-in tariff based on a system used in Europe for encouraging increased use of solar power.

Ideally, the feed-in tariff system works something like this:

1) The government mandates that utilities must pay above-market rates for electricity generated by renewable sources (such as solar)

2) Anyone who produces said solar power for the utility companies – from solar developers, to homeowners, to businesses – will be generously compensated

Yet based on the UCLA report, Grist’s Paul Gipe notes:

“So-called ‘feed-in tariff’ bills that have passed in California, are based on the value of the electricity, not on the cost of generation, and, thus, are not high enough to be effective. Solar developers have not used the feed-in tariff as a result.”

Gipe goes on to explain UCLA’s take on a feed-in tariff proposed by Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power (LADWP):

“LADWP’s proposed feed-in tariff program is intended to procure no more than 25 MW, an embarrassingly paltry amount for a city the size of Los Angeles that bills itself a leader in renewable energy.

“Worse, says UCLA, the LADWP’s tariffs will not even pay back a solar system’s initial cost. The tariffs must be increased by a factor of two to four before they become attractive. In short, “‘this proposal will not induce any additional in-basin solar for Los Angeles.’”

The Los Angeles Business Council released the UCLA report during LA’s annual sustainability summit this week. Now we’ll wait and watch to see if anything comes of it: Designing an Effective Feed-In Tariff for Greater Los Angeles.

Meredith Simonds Solar California, feed-in tariff, Grist, Los Angeles, Solar, UCLA

New Gallup poll reveals American priorities are shifting when it comes to fossil fuel development versus environmental concerns.

For the first time in the 10 years since they have been asked the same question, more Americans place a greater emphasis on energy production than on protecting the environment! We’re not talking energy production via alternative means either (like wind or solar) but specifically oil, gas and coal development, and it seems there is little chance respondents misunderstood.

The March 2010 Gallup poll on energy and the environment asked:

With which one of these statements about the environment and energy production do you most agree:

1) Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies — such as oil, gas and coal — which the United States produce.

OR

2) Development of U.S. energy supplies  — such as oil, gas and coal — should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.

In fact, 50 percent of respondents chose option number two, sacrificing the environment for fossil fuel development, as opposed to 43 percent who chose option number one.

In explaining the logic behind this shift, Treehugger points to Gallup’s suggestion that “environmental protection typically falls out of favor with Americans in harder economic times.”

In looking at the Gallup poll graphic that charts the answers to this question over the past 10 years, the majority of Americans in favor of protecting the environment over fossil fuel energy development hit its peak in 2007. Of course, that’s the same year the U.S. went into recession, and Gallup poll results have been shifting the other way ever since.

Yet beyond the correlation between the economy and environmental concerns, it is worth noting the point on the graph where fossil fuels start gaining ground — 2009. It’s worth noting that Americans’ shifting priorities are a direct result of the climate change controversy that started last year and has raged ever since.

Meredith Simonds Oil Climate Change, Climate change, energy, environment, Gallup poll, Solar, Wind

“Morocco, which sits at the crossroads between Africa and the Middle East, is leading these regions in groundbreaking environmental practices,” says Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers.

The Kingdom of Morocco is making the most of its capital city’s high-profile participation as just one of six premier international cities leading Earth Day celebrations worldwide. Not only has Morocco recently announced renewable energy plans to power nearly half the kingdom with solar by 2020, but Earth Day in the city of Rabat will mark the launch of 10 green-geared Moroccan projects.

The ambitious solar plan in Morocco is to invest $9 billion toward the creation of 2 Gigawatts of solar power. Distributed among five solar plants throughout the Kingdom, this will be enough energy to provide 42 percent of the residents’ electricity.

“This is a bold but realistic project,” says Moroccan Energy Minister Amina Benkhadra. “We will guarantee all the technical and financial resources to make it succeed.”

Beyond this impressive renewable energy investment, Morocco will launch 10 new environmental projects in conjunction with Earth Day, including:

• Teaching environmental education in schools
• Establishing a national observatory for environment and rural development
• Fighting desertification
• Preserving ecosystems
• Managing food waste
• Ending the use of plastic bags

“Morocco, which sits at the crossroads between Africa and the Middle East, is leading these regions in groundbreaking environmental practices,” says Earth Day Network President Kathleen Rogers. “inspiring millions of people to make a personal commitment to the environment for Earth Day and beyond.”

Inspired? Join the Earth Day Revolution – your chance to formally announce your own intentions to start making a greener difference on April 22, 2010.

Meredith Simonds Green Communitites 2020, Earth Day, Morocco, Rabat, Renewable Energy, solar plants, solar power

Intent on making our military more energy efficient, the Obama administration is testing biofueled fighter jets and investing in a state-of-the-art biofuels research facility.

Yesterday in my blog about President Obama’s speech on offshore drilling, I mentioned an announcement in his speech that has been largely overlooked by the press — that a Navy fighter jet is scheduled to make a record-breaking flight on Earth Day. It will be “the first plane to ever fly faster than the speed of sound,” said Obama, “on a fuel mix that is half biomass.” Well, on the same day Obama announced this biofuels development, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced another. The DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is building an $18 million Advanced Biofuels Process Development Unit (PDU).

According to the DOE’s website, the goal of the Advanced Biofuels PDU is to:

[Speed] the commercialization of advanced biofuels by allowing researchers and the private sector to test and integrate innovative technologies. The facility…will be a publicly available facility where researchers can integrate process steps and test innovative technology pathways…. This facility will be the only one of its kind available for public use.

The Advanced Biofuels PDU – expected to be fully operational by early 2011 – represents $18 million of the $718 million made available for the DOE’s Biomass Program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

It appears the PDU will appeal to universities, national laboratories, and industry partners that have made biofuels discoveries in their own laboratories but need access to more advanced testing technology, with capabilities that include:

• Unique pretreatment of biomass
• Enzyme production
• Fermentation for the production of multiple biofuels
• Product purification in quantities sufficient for engine testing at partner institutions

So what’s the catch?

Though there is no suggestion of this in the official DOE announcement, I suspect “the catch” lies in ownership. Those who choose to use the Advanced Biofuels PDU will surely be required to share their research with the government. Though I have little doubt the administration genuinely wants to see advancement in the biofuels industry, I suspect they are equally concerned with the ability to control these technologies. Especially considering that the Navy (and Air Force) are aggressively testing biofuels technology.

“The Navy…has set a goal of using 50-percent alternative fuels in all planes, vehicles, and ships in the next 10 years,” Obama said in his speech. “That’s why the Defense Department has invested $2.7 billion this year alone to improve energy efficiency.

“The Pentagon isn’t seeking these alternative fuels just to protect our environment; they’re pursuing these homegrown energy sources to protect our national security.”

Meredith Simonds Biofuels Advanced Biofuels Process Development Unit, Biofuels, Biomass Program, Department of Energy, DOE, Earth Day, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Navy fighter jet, Obama, PDU

Though intended to announce the expansion of offshore drilling expoloration, President Obama's speech at Andrews Air Force Base included clean energy advancements that deserve coverage too.

In President Obama’s speech yesterday at Andrews Air Force Base, he formally announced the U.S. expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration. Yet, he also pointed out some pretty noteworthy advancements in the administration’s pursuit of clean energy alternatives, from wind to solar.

Certainly, it was an obvious attempt to ease us into the notion of seeking and using more fossil fuels. But considering all the criticism he’s taking for increasing offshore drilling, it is worth noting the same speech reminded us of the Obama administration’s genuine clean energy efforts and how they, in the long run, should ultimately decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.

THE SPEECH

“Already, we’ve made the largest investment in clean energy in our nation’s history,” said Obama.

“It’s an investment that’s expected to create or save more than 700,000 jobs across America — jobs manufacturing advanced batteries for more efficient vehicles; upgrading the power grid so that it’s smarter and it’s stronger; doubling our nation’s capacity to generate renewable electricity from sources like the wind and the sun.”

And, “after decades in which we have done little to increase auto efficiency, new auto standards will be finalized, which will reduce our dependence on oil while helping folks spend a little less at the pump.”

In fact, these new auto efficiency standards were finalized today which, as Obama says, are expected to “save 1.8 billion — billion barrels of oil overall — 1.8 billion barrels of oil.  And that’s like taking 58 million cars off the road for an entire year.”

Obama also announced that the federal government is going to double the number of hybrid vehicles in its fleet.

And though I’m personally skeptical of these pursuits, it’s worth noting Obama also reminded us of his continued investments in clean coal and his approval of loan guarantees “to break ground on America’s first new nuclear facility in three decades, a project that will create thousands of jobs.”

Then he hit us with the news. Yes indeed, we are going to be drilling offshore. Specifically, we are going to explore the the mid and south Atlantic,  the Gulf of Mexico, and the North Slope of Alaska.

But in typical Obama fashion, the way he explains offshore drilling, it actually starts to make sense:

We have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil.  And what that means is that drilling alone can’t come close to meeting our long-term energy needs.  And for the sake of our planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.

So the answer is not drilling everywhere all the time.  But the answer is not, also, for us to ignore the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth and our security.  Ultimately, we need to move beyond the tired debates of the left and the right, between business leaders and environmentalists, between those who would claim drilling is a cure all and those who would claim it has no place.  Because this issue is just too important to allow our progress to languish while we fight the same old battles over and over again.

For decades we’ve talked about how our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy -– yet our will to act rises and falls with the price of a barrel of oil.  When gas gets expensive at the pump, suddenly everybody is an energy expert.  And when it goes back down, everybody is back to their old habits.

With that in mind, Obama points out toward the end of his speech that the federal government — the military specifically — is trying to kick its own bad habits to the curb.

Why did Obama chose Andrews Air Force Base for a speech intended to announce offshore drilling? To make an equally intriguing clean energy announcement, of course. The military has been testing biofuels in its fighter jets and a record-breaking flight is planned real soon.

Now that’s a big announcement! But leave it to offshore drilling to overshadow what will be “the first plane ever to fly faster than the speed of sound on a fuel mix that is half biomass” — truly a landmark clean energy advancement ignored by the press, even when that record is scheduled to be set on April 22, 2010, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

Meredith Simonds Oil Andrew Air Force Base, Biofuels, Earth Day, energy speech, fighter jet, offshore drilling, President Obama, Solar, Wind