GreenerBuildings reports that retailers that put green practices to work at their facilities can save tens of millions of dollars a year by managing resources and waste more aggressively, according to SSA & Company.  “Retailers spend millions of dollars on their green agendas, but never see the opportunity those agendas present to operate smarter, more efficiently, and with lower cost,” Suzanne Long, the Retail Practice leader for the global operations consulting firm, said in a statement announcing the release yesterday of the SSA & Company’s white paper, “Going Green in the Retail Industry.”

GreenBiz reports that a day after granting California the authority to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions as part of its efforts to address climate change, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to create tougher rules to reduce air pollution from U.S.-flagged large ships.  The new shipping rules  are designed to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and sulfur and nitrogen oxides, which can cause cancer and result in premature deaths.

Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital reports that bankers are funding renewable energy projects again – at least in Europe. On the U.S. side of the pond, the financing for solar parks, wind farms and the like remain in a deep freeze, according to new figures from New Energy Finance. But there is reason to believe the U.S. situation is better than the numbers indicate – and the European situation is worse.

Tim Woodall at FD Element

Lighting Retrofit Saves Rogers Centre $300,000 Annually

Former funnyman Al Franken talks to Grist about Minnesota’s hotly contested Senate race

EPA Approves California Emissions Waiver

Clean Development Mechanism: Lessons for Post-Kyoto Talks

Yahoo! Abandons Carbon Offsets in Favor of Efficiency

E.P.A. Allows California Emissions Rules

Green Buildings Get Boost in Cap-and-Trade Bill

Microsoft Reduces Windows 7 Packaging

A recent report by the Potential Gas Committee found that the United States holds up to 35 percent more natural gas reserves than previously thought.   What does this mean for a country in the midst of a debate on how to address the effects of climate change?

As Marc Gunther writes this week on GreenBiz.com, “in the energy and climate change debate, environmentalists are for the most part united in their feelings about coal (very bad), gasoline (avoid “gas guzzlers”),  nuclear energy (scary), hydropower (small is better than big),  wind (good unless you worry about birds), solar thermal (nifty) and rooftop solar PV (even niftier).”

But when it comes to natural gas, very few have strong feelings about this Other Fossil Fuel.

For an energy source as prolific as natural gas, which provides more U.S. energy than coal, nuclear, and all renewable sources combined, you’d think there would be some type of consensus.  But no.  Even the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) logo neglects to have a natural gas symbol, despite have one for oil, wind, hydro and nuclear. (more…)

Big Alaska Looks to Small Nuclear

A Strong Energy Bill Means a Strong Economy and Future

Anheuser-Busch Taps Landfill Gas for Houston Brewery

Clean Development Mechanism: Lessons for Post-Kyoto Talks

Obama Opposes Trade Sanctions in Climate Bill

Seeking a Tougher Climate Bill, Green Groups Set Eyes on the Senate

The Environmental Risks of Arctic Shipping

Water Wars or Something Better: Can Water Bring Peace?

Climate Biz reports on the Waxman-Markey bill being debated on the floor of the House today.  The cornerstone of the bill would be to put a cap and a price on emitting carbon. If passed, the bill would be a giant step toward low-carbon electric power, but unfortunately it would not solve the grave problem of U.S. oil dependence.

The Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog reports that in February, First Solar tooted its horn about breaking the $1-per-watt barrier for making solar modules in the last months of 2008. This week, the company said costs had fallen again to 93 cents per watt, down 5% in three months and down 28% in a year.  The Walton family of Wal-Mart fame owns about 39% of First Solar stock – and the retailer’s legendary penchant for driving down costs is rubbing off on the renewable-energy company.

The New York Times’ Green Inc blog questions whether making trade more free could lead to a rise in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of greater economic activity. But more trade could also help to staunch climate change by increasing the availability of climate-friendly technologies and products.  Those are the conclusions in report issued on Friday by the World Trade Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.

Treehugger reports that on the passing of Michael Jackson last night, an important contribution of his to the environmental movement may have been overlooked.  “Earth Song,” his big, bold environmental call-to-arms, is indisputably the most popular green-themed tune ever. It remains Jackson’s best-selling single in the U.K., and beat out the Beatles’ first single in 25 years for the top spot on the British charts. But if you live in the U.S., you probably haven’t heard it, until now…

Tim Woodall at FD Element

What Does Big Solar Want? What Doesn’t It Want?

Round-up: Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill Up For Vote

California Delays Carbon Fee Decision

British PM urges $100 billion global green fund

The Nexus of Climate Change and Human Rights

EPA Sees Limited Renewable Growth under Waxman-Markey

Coal is Here to Stay, Says Obama’s Chief Environmental Adviser

Japan Sees Extra Emissions Cuts to 2020 Goal - Minister

Addressing climate change is going to take more than simply managing what is measured, purchasing carbon offsets, or making sure that your company’s sustainability reports are printed on recycled paper.  It will require a systematic approach that reduces the total amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Sunil Paul’s Gigaton Throwdown project released a report today that outlines how currently-available technology, if scaled appropriately, could each reduce the carbon emissions by a gigaton (1 billion tons) annually.  The report asks: What would it take to aggressively scale up clean energy to have a major impact on job growth, energy independence and climate change over the next 10 years?

To attain gigaton scale, a single technology must reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent greenhouse gases (CO2e) by at least 1 billion metric tons — a gigaton — by 2020. For an electricity generation technology, this is equivalent to an installed capacity of 205 gigawatts of carbon-free energy by 2020.

The notion of gigatons, says Paul, “made a lot of sense because one gigaton per year is enough to make a major difference by 2020. We chose an amount that matters and we chose a time frame that’s relevant to entrepreneurs and investors.”

Of the technologies reviewed, there are seven — building efficiency, concentrated solar power, construction materials, nuclear, biofuels, solar photovoltaics and wind — that are ready to scale up aggressively today. One, geothermal, can scale up fully after an intense period of research, development, and deployment of pilot plants. Combined, these eight technologies can meet over 50 percent of new global energy demand while avoiding over 8 gigatons of CO2e reductions globally.

(more…)

Ford, Nissan and Tesla Awarded $8 Billion for Electric Vehicles

We Use How Much Water? Scary Water Footprints, Country by Country

Baxter’s Green Practices Yield $11.9 Million in Environmental Savings and Income

Major Shift in Cleantech Investment

The U.S. House has taken another step this week towards a floor vote on its energy bill – the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).  ACES includes a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, a renewable energy mandate for utilities, strict efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, money for various alternatives to fossil fuels, and funding for smart grid and electric vehicle infrastructure.

However, the bill’s progress had been temporarily been stalled by Democratic infighting within Representative Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) Energy and Commerce Committee and elsewhere in the House.  At issue are credits to farmers who instill more environmental practices intended to keep carbon out of the atmosphere, as well as which federal department would regulate carbon offset programs in the agricultural sector.

Waxman is looking to see the House adopt the energy bill before the start of the Fourth of July recess, and it appears that revamping the health care system, previously seen as having priority, will now be taken up later this year.  But as it stands, the energy bill currently falls short of the 218 votes needed to pass. Several Democrats are resistant to vote for a bill on the floor that comes with near unanimous GOP opposition, as well as no promise of success in the Senate

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA) was the only Republican to back the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, while four Democrats rejected it: Reps. Mike Ross (AR), Jim Matheson (UT), John Barrow (GA) and Charlie Melancon (LA).

Helping to ease the turmoil a bit was a report released today by the U.S. EPA that found that the overall impact on the average household, including the benefits of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year). The Congressional Budget Office released a report last week that projected a cost of 48 cents per day for the average household in 2020 ($175 per year).  Even though neither the EPA analysis nor the CBO analyses take into account the benefits of reducing global warming, these numbers are much lower than previous reports have indicated.

Republicans have crafted their own energy bill, authored by Rep. Joe Barton, to counter the Democrats’ legislation.  This bill represents a huge environmental step back, and includes measures such as repealing Massachusetts vs EPA, providing subsidies for coal-burning power plants, defining nuclear and advanced coal technology as “renewable,” and promoting oil drilling in the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Stay tuned.  Our economic and environmental future is on the line.

Tim Woodall at FD Element

Is Washington the New Wall Street for Cleantech?

Russia’s Do-nothing Climate Plan

Greenpeace Says Big Brands Destroying Rainforest

Unleashing the Next Wave of Engineering Innovation 

CDP, Markit and NASDAQ to Offer New Green Investment Indices
Oil Drilling Outlays May See Modest Uptick In 2010 After Big ‘09 Drop-Survey
FTC on Greenwashing: Is That All There Is?
Just Say No: Climate Skeptics and Deniers

The New York Times’ Green Inc. reports that electronics manufacturer Dell recently took its competitor, Apple, to task for advertising that its Macbook line is “the world’s greenest family of notebooks”.  The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus — the advertising industry’s self-governing body whose job it is to review truthfulness and accuracy in marketing claims — was brought in to determine the veracity of Apple’s assertions.

Environmental Leader reports that all 30.8 million allowances under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) were sold at auction this week, fetching an average price of $3.23 per allowance.  One bidder bought up 7.7 million allowances or nearly a fourth of all those available. In all, four bidders purchased 2 million or more emission allowances, with nine bidders buying 1 million or more, and 18 bidders scooping up 250,000 allowances or more.

Treehugger reports on the seedy underbelly of green business.  Stories have been surfacing that solar power companies who start projects without agreeing to hire unionized labor are finding themselves in a suspicious bit of trouble. Reports suggest that they’re suddenly buried under legal demands to ensure the project won’t interfere with dozens of different species, face hostile testimony at public hearings, and are forced to conduct lengthy, barely relevant environmental studies.

The Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital reports on Duke Energy’s announcement that it plans to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Ohio. Duke CEO Jim Rogers said last month that he’s “betting on nuclear” as a low-emissions power source, especially given all the uncertainty over the cost and timing of developing “clean coal” plants.

Tim Woodall at FD Element