While global investment in clean energy fell by 11 percent in 2012, the dip still left last year as the second most successful year ever for the sector. And despite the speed bump, the planet’s installed capacity to generate wind power shot up from 238 gigawatts to slightly more than 282 gigawatts last year, according to numbers compiled by the Global Wind Energy Council.

The increase was driven by China and the United States, which both installed roughly 13 gigawatts a pop, bringing their cumulative totals to 75.6 gigawatts and 60 gigawatts, respectively. The GWEC’s numbers for the spike in U.S. wind capacity are a bit higher than the 10.7 gigawatts reported recently by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — but even under that lower estimate, wind’s newly installed capacity beat out every other form of American power.

Overall, the 2011 to 2012 jump reported by the GWEC was almost 20 percent:

Source: The Guardian, from data compiled by the GWEC

How much power these new installations generate? In 2010, American wind power utilized 27.4 percent of its nameplate capacity. But that’s the nature of wind, and the increase in capacity is a sign of wind’s economic viability. Bloomberg New Energy Finance just released new research concluding that wind power in Australia is already cheaper than coal and natural gas — and its cost superiority remained even when the price Australia charges polluters to emit carbon is discounted.

Breaking down the numbers by global region, Europe’s wind capacity continued chugging along the steady upward trajectory it’s been on for the last eight years. North America’s annual capacity additions have been on a much more dramatic upward swing, and after dropping in 2010 and 2011, shot back upward dramatically, topping Europe for the first time. Asia, too, has been rising very rapidly over the last few years, though its new capacity in 2012 fell a bit from highs of over 20 gigawatts in 2010 and 2011.

Source: GWEC

The GWEC chalked Asia’s 2012 slowdown up to market consolidation in China and “a lapse in policy” in India. The North American spike was driven by a last minute dash in the U.S. to take advantage of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind: 8 gigawatts of the country’s total 13 gigawatts were installed in the final quarter of last year. Wind’s PTC was anticipated to die with the arrival of the “fiscal cliff” — which would’ve likely damaged both jobs and the progress of renewable energy in America — but the January deal that averted the cliff also extended the tax credit for another year.

The fight over the PTC led to a split in the GOP, as Republicans from states with high levels of wind power development lined up behind extending the tax credit in opposition to the rest of their party. Tea party Rep. Steve King (R-IA), of all people, told a recent policy forum that Congress has “got to be a more reliable partner” in promoting renewable energy.

By Brendan DeMelle via DeSmogBlog

A new academic study confirms that front groups with longstanding ties to the tobacco industry and the billionaire Koch brothers planned the formation of the Tea Party movement more than a decade before it exploded onto the U.S. political scene.

Far from a genuine grassroots uprising, this astroturf effort was curated by wealthy industrialists years in advance. Many of the anti-science operatives who defended cigarettes are currently deploying their tobacco-inspired playbook internationally to evade accountability for the fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate disruption.

The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health, traces the roots of the Tea Party’s anti-tax movement back to the early 1980s when tobacco companies began to invest in third party groups to fight excise taxes on cigarettes, as well as health studies finding a link between cancer and secondhand cigarette smoke.

Published in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Tobacco Control, the study titled, ‘To quarterback behind the scenes, third party efforts’: the tobacco industry and the Tea Party, is not just an historical account of activities in a bygone era. As senior author, Stanton Glantz, a University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) professor of medicine, writes:

“Nonprofit organizations associated with the Tea Party have longstanding ties to tobacco companies, and continue to advocate on behalf of the tobacco industry’s anti-tax, anti-regulation agenda.”

The two main organizations identified in the UCSF Quarterback study are Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks. Both groups are now “supporting the tobacco companies’ political agenda by mobilizing local Tea Party opposition to tobacco taxes and smoke-free laws.” Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity were once a single organization called Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE). CSE was founded in 1984 by the infamous Koch Brothers, David and Charles Koch, and received over $5.3 million from tobacco companies, mainly Philip Morris, between 1991 and 2004.

In 1990, Tim Hyde, RJR Tobacco’s head of national field operations, in an eerily similar description of the Tea Party today, explained why groups like CSE were important to the tobacco industry’s fight against government regulation. Hyde wrote:

“… coalition building should proceed along two tracks: a) a grassroots organizational and largely local track,; b) and a national, intellectual track within the DC-New York corridor. Ultimately, we are talking about a “movement,” a national effort to change the way people think about government’s (and big business) role in our lives. Any such effort requires an intellectual foundation – a set of theoretical and ideological arguments on its behalf.”

The common public understanding of the origins of the Tea Party is that it is a popular grassroots uprising that began with anti-tax protests in 2009.

However, the Quarterback study reveals that in 2002, the Kochs and tobacco-backed CSE designed and made public the first Tea Party Movement website under the web address www.usteaparty.com. Here’s a screenshot of the archived U.S. Tea Party site, as it appeared online on Sept. 13, 2002:

Read more

By Melanie Hart via CAP. The PDF has all citations.

In President Barack Obama’s first term, economic issues were often a source of friction between the United States and China, particularly regarding clean energy. But things started off relatively well a few years ago: President Obama made his first trip to China as president of the United States in November 2009, and energy cooperation was high on the agenda. President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao signed multiple agreements pledging to cooperate on a range of important energy initiatives such as the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center and a U.S.-China renewable-energy partnership.

These initiatives are important. The United States and China are the world’s biggest energy consumers and biggest greenhouse gas emitters. Our two nations have similar energy and climate problems but different comparative advantages for addressing those problems. The United States leads in cutting-edge clean energy innovation, and China leads in the rapid commercialization and deployment of those technologies.

Working together on clean energy just makes sense. If U.S. and Chinese clean energy enterprises can have open access to both markets, that access will improve their abilities to achieve good economies of scale and drive down costs. If both markets are competitive, that will give enterprises in both countries strong incentives to innovate, and innovation will lead to new technologies and new business models that should speed our transition to a clean energy economy. That would be good for U.S. and Chinese consumers, good for our economies, and good for the planet as a whole.

Despite those macro-level incentives to cooperate, however, things can get a bit more complicated when we actually delve into the details. Although we want to cooperate at a macro level, the United States and China are also big competitors at a market level. Both countries want to see their own companies dominate in critical industries such as solar and wind. Neither Washington nor Beijing is happy about being too reliant on energy products or services provided by foreign enterprises. Balancing cooperation with competition and our respective national ambitions is always difficult, and clean energy is no exception.

Although the United States and China expanded bilateral cooperation with critical projects such as the Clean Energy Research Center, throughout President Obama’s first term we increasingly butted heads in the trade realm. U.S. steel workers filed a World Trade Organization petition against China’s wind-power equipment subsidies in 2010; U.S. solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers filed U.S. Department of Commerce countervailing duty petitions and antidumping petitions against Chinese manufacturers producing those same products in 2011; and the American Semiconductors Corporation is still engaged in an ongoing legal battle with China’s Sinovel Wind Group over alleged intellectual property theft.

These U.S.-China clean energy trade frictions are serious, and unfortunately they are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. China’s regime to protect intellectual property rights is still developing. Some local officials in China are still more interested in protecting local companies than in adhering to international trade laws, and China’s relative lack of administrative transparency can make the resultant trade complaints very hard to resolve.

One area in which the Obama administration has proven especially adept, however, is approaching the U.S.-China relationship issue by issue without letting frustrations on one issue spill over and impede cooperation elsewhere. As my colleague Nina Hachigian recently wrote, President Obama has taken a “clear-eyed, nuanced and effective approach” toward China. Where cooperation makes sense, the president has been ready to deal. Where he feels American interests are being harmed, he has not hesitated to get tough.

This is exactly what we will need more of in U.S.-China relations in the clean energy sector. We need to continue to keep an eye on clean energy trade to ensure that American companies have a level playing field, but trade frictions should not hold us back from pursuing promising opportunities with China in other areas.

One of our most promising opportunities for U.S.-China clean energy cooperation is inward Chinese direct investment. Many Chinese companies want to come to the United States, directly invest in this country, and create jobs here. That is exactly what our economy needs, particularly in sectors such as renewable energy generation that generally do not pose national security concerns and will require large amounts of investment capital to develop. The problem is, however, that we do not have a good policy framework in place to encourage these investments.

In President Obama’s first term, the White House signaled general support for increasing Chinese direct investment. During Vice President Joe Biden’s August 2011 China trip, for example, the vice president stated:

President Obama and I, we welcome, encourage and see nothing but positive benefits flowing from direct investment in the United States from Chinese businesses and Chinese entities. It means jobs. It means American jobs.

From the perspective of most potential Chinese investors, however, those general statements of welcome are not enough to make the U.S. market look like a good bet. These investors need to be able to predict how the U.S. government will respond to particular foreign-invested business models—and that requires actual policies. The only policies we have at present are the national security review policies of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which are designed to block foreign direct investments that could pose national security concerns. National security protections are very important, but we should pair those protections with additional policies designed to encourage foreign investment in the sectors where security is not an issue. In this era of economic difficulty, we should not let those opportunities go by the wayside.

This issue brief will outline the opportunities and current problems in attracting Chinese direct investment and offer policy recommendations for how the United States can make the most of Chinese capital and knowledge in the clean energy sector.

Read more

Obama surprised almost everyone when he channeled his inner climate hawk in his powerful second inaugural address. Now everyone is wondering what he will say in his State of the Union address Tuesday.

This weekend, the Washington Post editorial board weighed in:

President Obama will deliver his 2013 State of the Union address on Tuesday, and expectations are high that he will devote significant time to climate change. We hope that he adopts a different approach to explaining the need for action than he did in much of his first term.

In past addresses, talking about green jobs didn’t work, nor did talking about energy independence. The credible way to justify fighting climate change is to discuss the science, the real reason to cut carbon emissions. There is overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. The widespread burning of fossil fuels, meanwhile, pumps heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every second….

It is certainly nice to see the Washington Post opinion page — home to George Will and other deniers — acknowledge that those of us who have been urging blunt talk on climate science for years have been right all along (see Brulle [1/11]: “By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action).

Let me say that while I think talking about green jobs and energy independence was — and is — a good idea, those who urged only talking about those things were clearly wrong in retrospect. That’s because the oil and gas folks have been able to make a rhetorically strong (albeit flawed) case that they are the ones who can deliver jobs and reduced oil imports. Only one set of technologies can deliver jobs, energy independence, and preserve a livable climate. So only one set of technologies can avoid betraying our children and future generations. Game, set, and match.

Certainly team Obama worked hard to make sure that when he and other political and environmental leaders did talk about the need for action, the science was left out (see “Team Obama Launched The Inane Strategy Of Downplaying Climate Change Back In 2009“).

To remind you of how much the President has muzzled himself in recent years, recall what he said about the “never seen before” Fargo flooding in March 2009:

“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating,” Obama told reporters Monday. “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’ That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.“

Precisely. Yet for nearly four years of record heat, record drought, record wildfires — and record-shattering frankenstorms, Obama had little to offer but climate silence.

That’s why it was so surprising he said last month:

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

Now it’s time for him to spell out the threat even more clearly — as well as the technologies and policies needed to address it.

The price of solar photovoltaics (PV) modules continue to decline.

Dan Lashof via NRDC’s Switchboard

Last July I published an issue brief called Closer than You Think, pointing out that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2011 were lower than many people realized—about 9 percent below their 2005/2007 peak—putting President Obama’s 17-percent-below -2005-levels reduction target within reach. Since then recognition that U.S. emissions have been falling has become more widespread. In October, Dallas Burtraw and Matthew Woerman at Resources for the Future argued that the U.S. is “on course” to achieving a 16.3 percent reduction by 2020. Last week the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) released a report documenting the rapid growth in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas generation over the last few years and estimating that U.S. 2012 carbon dioxide emissions were almost 13 percent below 2005 levels. This week the World Resources Institute released an analysis asking “Can The U.S. Get There From Here?” and senior associate Nicholas Bianco said “The U.S. is not yet on track to hit its 17 percent target.”

So are we there yet or what? The apparent dispute between WRI and RFF is largely semantic, of the glass-is-half-full v. half-empty kind. The RFF report actually showed that the U.S. is only “on course” if the EPA does its job of setting global warming pollution standards for power plants and several other categories of stationary sources which it had examined in an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking back in July 2008. EPA has set standards for mobile sources and proposed a standard for new power plants, but stationary source standards that will have a big impact on emissions, particularly standards for existing power plants, remain a work in progress. WRI, for its part, noted that the 2020 target is achievable using existing tools if the federal government takes an ambitious “go getter” approach. WRI finds that 90 percent of the reductions needed by 2020 can come from four measures: carbon pollution standards for existing power plants; phasing out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); reducing methane emissions from oil and gas production and distribution; and increasing energy efficiency standards for appliances and other energy-using equipment. Even if federal standards end up being “middle of the road,” WRI finds that the 2020 target could still be attained if states adopt more aggressive “go getter” policies.

How realistic is it to think we can achieve the emission reductions in WRI’s “go-getter” scenario? Here is where the BCSE/BNEF report helps, with more than one-hundred figures that paint a picture of the major changes underway in America’s energy system that have already achieved about three-quarters of the targeted reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. (Note that the WRI and RFF reports look at reducing total global warming pollution by 17 percent, which is a somewhat more challenging task, given projected growth in the non-CO2 gases which account for about 20 percent of the total). The BCSE/BNEF report highlights the recent dramatic growth in three major technologies: energy efficiency, renewables, and natural gas. (The report misleadingly labels these collectively as “sustainable” energy, when natural gas, while cleaner-burning than other fossil fuels, is by definition not sustainable). Let’s take a look at each of these technologies in turn.

Energy efficiency

The data presented in the BCSE/BNEF report show clearly that energy efficiency has been the energy policy success story of the last 30 years. Since 1970 total natural gas used in our homes has remained essentially flat while the number of households has increased by over 70% (Figure 22). In commercial buildings overall energy use per square foot has declined substantially since 1980, while electricity use per square foot has increased slightly, although not nearly as much as you would expect given the huge increase in the number of computers, printers, and servers we now stuff into our offices (Figure 91). There is still plenty of room for improvement. Most large office buildings are now Energy Star certified, but that is not the case with smaller office buildings and other types of commercial buildings, such as stores, schools, and hospitals.

Renewable energy

Read more

Climate scientist Peter Gleick has launched a new must-read National Geographic ScienceBlogs column, “Significant Figures.” He explains what it will cover here. I’m reposting his second piece below — JR.

The pipeline is just a piece in a much larger puzzle. Photo montage by Peter Gleick

by Peter Gleick

It is time we just said “no.”

There is growing attention to climate change in the media; and there is a growing realization that decisions we make today will have a lasting effect on the world’s climate tomorrow.

But there is still a gap – a chasm really – between the reality of climate change and our day-to-day choices, investments, and public debates about water, energy, food, and resources.

Here is the reality: the burning of fossil fuels is the leading contributor of gases that are already changing the planet’s delicate climate, and the climate will continue to change in an exponentially increasing and worsening way unless we reduce emissions.

Here is the gap: we continue to make decisions in every phase of our lives ignoring the reality of climate change. Incrementally, each of our decisions might be, or at least appear to be, minor in the grand scheme of things. Combined, they propel us forward on a path to disaster.

This kind of gap is inevitable and understandable: the problem over global climate change is complicated and unprecedented; there is a massive well-funded effort to confuse the public about basic facts by those vested in the status quo (as there was in the tobacco debate and is in the gun safety debate); and the global or even national transitions needed require political courage that seems to be in short supply. This doesn’t bode well for the ability of society to make short-term choices that are in our own long-term interest.

A key, timely example: The Keystone XL Pipeline.

What is the Keystone XL pipeline? For those who haven’t been following the news in this area, very simply, this is a proposed large pipeline project to expand the capacity to bring fossil fuels derived from the Athabasca oil sands region in Alberta, Canada south through the United States to refineries and transportation hubs along the Texas Gulf Coast.

There are important and complex pros and cons to the project and these have been and continue to be argued in local, state, and national forums. Many in the environmental community are lobbying hard for President Obama and the State Department to withhold permission to expand the pipeline. In August 2011, a group of climate scientists sent a letter urging the President to reject the pipeline. A second letter was sent in early 2013. There have been public protests at the White House, along the proposed route, and by landowners in Texas. The state of Nebraska originally opposed the pipeline because of concerns about the threat of groundwater contamination and accidents.

The fossil fuel industry, major Republicans (and some Democrats), Texas politicians, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others are urging quick approval.

Like most complicated environmental issues, this one is, well, complicated.

Read more

Battery innovation is improving around 5 to 8 percent per year, which can deliver a doubling in core performance metrics for electric cars every ten years. [Gigaom]

While battery innovation appears gradual, the incremental leaps add up over time. Battery innovation is improving around 5 to 8 percent per year, which can deliver a doubling in core performance metrics every ten years, which is ultimately really “revolutionary” said [Tesla’s CTO and co-founder J.B.] Straubel. Because of the large size and heavy physical weight of batteries involved with electric cars, the impact of battery innovation on the design of the car can be even more significant than Moore’s Law has on some computing products, added Straubel.

For car design, “It’s almost as if the properties of steel were improving at a rate of 5 to 8 percent per year,” said Straubel.

… the energy density of batteries goes up 15 percent every 18 months; the cost per kilowatt hour goes down 15 percent every 18 months; the life cycles of the batteries (how many times it can charge and recharge) goes up 15 percent every 18 months; and the cost per lifecycle-mile does down 50 percent every 18 months.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that a federal decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline should arrive in the “near term,” but did not define what “near term” means. [The Hill]

While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, solar panel manufacturers are creating millions of pounds of polluted sludge and contaminated water each year. [WaPo]

Residential solar financing, the predominant business model in some of the largest residential markets in the U.S., is forecasted to rise from $1.3 billion in 2012 to $5.7 billion in 2016. [GreenTech Media]

The European Union will devote 20 percent of its 2014-2020 budget to climate-related spending, though other related funding has been cut. [RTCC]

According to the 2012 French Electricity Report, 1.022 gigawatts of solar energy were installed that year, increasing solar capacity in the country by 67 percent. [Clean Technia]

Wind power expanded globally by almost 20 percent in 2012, reaching a new peak of 282 gigawatts of total installed capacity. [The Guardian]