The CBS Evening News  had one of the best segments ever on manmade global warming.  The piece is headlined on their website, “Assessing the risk of climate change” with this description:

The past 12 months were the hottest on record, and forecasters are predicting high temperatures across the U.S. this summer. Science and environment contributor M. Sanjayan explains the risk of climate change.

Watch it:

Kudos to CBS News for running this segment with Sanjayan, who is “the lead scientist for The Nature Conservancy.” Let’s hope CBS makes it a regular feature.

Related Post:

• As floods and extreme weather devastate the world, CBS News explains the link to global warming

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has turned to pop culture to promote clean energy. He put up this picture and Facebook post on the new box office smash The Avengers:

I can rarely find the time to make it to the movies, but my staff is buzzing about The Avengers, which focuses on a new, limitless clean energy source called “The Tesseract.” In the film, there is evidently an intergalactic struggle to claim this new resource – one we can only win by relying on heroes like Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow, and the Incredible Hulk. Naturally, the group includes a couple scientists!

While the “Tesseract” may be fictional, the real-life global competition over clean energy is growing increasingly intense, as countries around the world sense a huge economic opportunity AND the opportunity for cleaner air, water, and a healthier planet. This is now a $260 billion global market, a sum that would impress even Tony Stark. According to the International Energy Agency, last year — for the first time — more money was invested worldwide in clean, renewable power plants than in fossil fuel power plants.

Given how big the opportunity is, and how fast it is growing, it is no surprise that 80 countries have adopted policies or incentives to capture a share of the clean energy market. The good news is that we have an advantage every bit as powerful as the Incredible Hulk: Americans’ talent for entrepreneurship and innovation is unrivalled by any other country in the world. We have world-leading scientific facilities that would make Bruce Banner green with envy, and the investments we’re making today in groundbreaking new technologies can help American businesses stay ahead of the curve.

Ultimately, however, the clean energy prize is still up for grabs and countries like China are competing aggressively. It’s not enough for us to simply invent the technologies of the future, we need to actually build and deploy them here as well. As President Obama noted recently, one step Congress should take immediately is to renew the expiring tax credits for clean energy – a step that will create jobs and help American companies compete. When it comes to clean energy, our motto should be: “Invented in America, Made in America, Sold Around the World.”

Chu is kind of the Bruce Banner of clean energy. Now if the rest of team Obama would only suit up since the world is most certainly facing the gravest imaginable danger….

Related Posts:

• Steven Chu on climate change (2/09): “Wake up,” America, “we’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.”
• Video (11/10): Steven Chu on why China’s bid for clean energy leadership should be our “Sputnik Moment”
• Steven Chu (8/11): ‘It Saddens Me’ That Political Leaders Don’t Understand Climate Science

by Elisa Wood, via Renewable Energy World

Why do some states avoid creating policies that encourage consumers and businesses to save energy? What’s the psychology of the laggards?

A new report by the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy sheds some insight as it examines the states that consistently fall behind in the organization’s annual energy efficiency ranking.

The bottom states are: Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The good news is that even these laggards are beginning to adopt policies to save energy, according to the report, “Opportunity Knocks: Examining Low-Ranking States in the State Energy Efficiency Scorecard.”

But they still have a lot of catching up to do. And why did they fall behind in the first place?

The report authors, who interviewed 55 stakeholders, found one reason is a general lack of awareness about energy efficiency’s benefits. Another is an aversion to government mandates. But one of the most fascinating barriers is a misperception about energy costs.

Industry folklore says that consumers in states with low electric rates have no motivation to save energy. This folklore discourages policymakers from putting time and money into energy efficiency programs. In truth, these states have good economic reasons to  encourage consumers to insulate, install better lighting, and undertake other energy savings measures.  It turns out that even though electric rates are low in these states, consumers are paying high monthly bills.

This may sound counterintuitive. But consider these numbers. In Alabama electric utilities charge 10.67 cents/kWh and households pay an average $147.69/month for electricity. Similarly, in South Carolina rates are 10.5 cents/kWh and monthly bills are $137.59/month. Compare Alabama and South Carolina to Massachusetts and California, two states with aggressive energy efficiency efforts. Massachusetts’ electric rates are high, averaging $14.59 cents/kWh, but monthly bills are low, only $97.34. California, too, has high rates of 14.75 cents/kWh and low monthly bills of $82.85.

So electric rates are higher in Massachusetts and California, yet households in those two states pay less per month for power than households in Alabama and South Carolina. This is because they consume less power. Households in the efficient states have an edge; they need less electricity each month to secure the same level of comfort and service in their homes as those in Alabama and South Carolina. So there should be plenty of good motivation for households in the low-rate states to pursue efficiency measures.

Another point of confusion involves the cost to society of investing in energy efficiency.  Because it’s generally categorized with other ‘green’ initiatives, energy efficiency is perceived as boutique and expensive.  To the contrary, it is cheaper to avoid energy use than to make new electricity, according to ACEEE.  Energy efficiency measures cost an average 2.5 cents/kWh while building a new power plant cost 6 to 15 cents/kWh. Because of this cost differential several states now mandate that utilities institute cost-effective energy efficiency before building new generation.

These are arguments, unfortunately, that might get lost in the din of an election year, one in which energy is shaping up to be a major issue. However, as is often the case, the states are leading the way and not relying on federal policy. Even the laggard states are picking up their pace when it comes to energy efficiency, as the ACEEE report describes. More here.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many top industry publications. See her articles at RealEnergyWriters.com. This piece was originally published at Renewable Energy World and was reprinted with permission.

by Kaid Benfield, via NRDC’s Switchboard

The housing price recovery has begun, says a new report from The Demand Institute, a think tank recently launched by Nielson and The Conference Board to track consumer demand.  Among the findings that are promising for more sustainable development patterns, the strongest segment of the market “comprises populous urban or semi-urban communities well served by local amenities.”

The authors of the report, The Shifting Nature of US Housing Demand, call this group of properties the “resilient walkables” and forecast a home price rise of three percent by 2013, and up to five percent per year between 2014 and 2017.

The analysis concludes that the weakest segment of the market, by contrast, are in outer and smaller suburbs or outlying areas that “are sparsely populated, and have low walkability.”  Though prices for this segment are “relatively cheap,” the authors contend that these “weighed down” properties will not rise in value enough to reach the national average even by 2017.

In other words, if you’re a real estate investor, put your money on smart growth and avoid sprawl.  To those in the field, this simply confirms trends that have been documented for years.  Alex Dodd summarized the report’s contrast between these two segments on Smart Growth America’s blog earlier this week.

A closer read of the new report, however, contains a lot of nuances, mostly but not entirely consistent with what other forecasters have been saying with regard to growing demand for smart growth.  From the new report:

• Nationally, the recovery will accelerate between 2012 and 2013, and again between 2015 and 2017.
• The recovery will be led by increasing demand for rental homes, especially from younger people and immigrants.  This, too, is consistent with my last analysis.  The national share of occupied rental homes as a portion of the total has risen from 31 percent in 2005 to 35 percent in 2012, and home ownership has declined sharply among persons under 35.  “The only segment of the home building sector now showing clear signs of recovery is multifamily housing,” driven by developers seeking to rent.
• But the dominance in rentals may be temporary.  Conversion of for-sale homes now in oversupply to rentals will clear the excess, the authors say, after which home ownership will rise and return to historical levels.
• The average size of the American home will continue to shrink.  By 2015, average new home size should be back to where it was in the mid-1990s.
• The extent to which walkability helps the market may depend on where you are.  In addition to the strong “resilient walkable” category and the weak “weighed down” category, the report identifies two other segments:  “slow but steady” homes in areas with average walkability and employment rates; and a “damaged but hopeful” segment, where neighborhoods are highly walkable but suffer from a weak regional economy.  Both will see price recovery, though not as quickly and strongly as the resilient walkables; the slow but steady group will see it sooner than the damaged but hopeful group.
• In a prediction I find particularly troubling, “neighborhoods will be increasingly segregated economically, resulting in polarization.”  The authors observe that the portion of Americans living in middle-income neighborhoods has declined considerably in recent decades, while the portions living in both affluent and poor neighborhoods has increased.  “Housing stock within neighborhoods will become more homogenous.”
• While the increased demand for urban and walkable, transit-served neighborhoods is clear – the authors note the positive correlation between Walk Scores and prices, “many Americans – particularly those planning to purchase – will move even farther from the city to suburbs where housing is more affordable.”
• There will be some ancillary effects of the increased demand for urban, smaller, and rental properties.  Industries that will do well include home remodeling, carsharing, and portable appliances.  Homes with less space for storage but more accessibility to shops may also lead consumers to more frequent purchases of smaller sizes of packaged goods.

Read more