Following President Obama’s “all-the-above” energy speech last Thursday, conservatives have ignored the speech and instead latched onto a single point about investing $14 million in algae-based biofuel research. “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this [algae] fuel that we can grow right here in the United States,” Obama said.

Newt Gingrich said the president’s comments are “worthy of Leno or Letterman.” The same candidate who wants moon colonies during his presidency attacked the president for a “weird” technology both Republicans and their industry allies have endorsed.

Gingrich isn’t alone in the right-wing attempt to simplify the administration’s multifaceted energy proposals:

Newt Gingrich: “And maybe what we ought to do at Newt.org is we ought to get t-shirts that say ‘You choose.’ Gingrich went on to suggest the slogans, ‘You have Newt: Drill here, Drill Now, Pay Less. You have Obama: Have Algae, Pay More, Be Weird.”

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): I think the American people realize that a president who’s out there talking about algae when they’re having to choose between whether to buy groceries or to fill up the tank is the one who’s out of touch.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer: Why build a keystone pipeline with real oil from Canada to put in real refineries and put in real existing cars when you can do algae? I think he is on to something. And I think this shows the vision, the hope and change he promised in 2008.

Rush Limbaugh: This guy is so out of his league, to throw out there, “I’m looking at algae.” It’s patently absurd. In a sane world this guy would be laughed out of office, not voted out.

By mocking the president, conservatives ignore a history of party leaders and their industry allies endorsing algae research.

Republicans from Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) have requested Department of Energy grants for algae research. All three lawmakers wrote that algae investments would reduce America’s oil use. For instance, Johanns wrote that an algae biotechnology center “would develop technology to decrease our dependence on imported oil.”

Republican allies in the oil industry have also invested in algae, including No. 1 oil lobbyist ConocoPhillips and ExonMobil, which sunk $600 million in algae biofuel research.

On energy, the administration is doing far more than budgeting for biofuel research. The White House’s FY 2013 budget provides billions for R&D and manufacturing in clean energy technologies, while higher fuel economy standards will reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, under Obama, domestic production of oil has reached record levels of quadruple the drilling rigs over the past three years.

by Cole Mellino

When copying the model of land-based industrialized farming, current aquaculture practices can have many of the same negative environmental impacts inherent in industrial-scale agriculture.

U.S. aquaculture operations, primarily producing shellfish, are subject to stringent environmental regulations. But due to the poorly regulated use of high amounts of chemicals and antibiotics to maintain massive, centralized monocultures of fish and shrimp particularly in South America and southeast Asia, aquaculture farms have gained a reputation for polluting water and producing poor-quality food.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The Atlantic had a fantastic piece this week on the growing movement to clean up aquaculture operations — producing better food, sustainable biproducts, and making them a solution to environmental problems:

Unsurprisingly, once information got out among the general public, “aquaculture” quickly became a dirty word. Industry responded with a strategy of mislabeling seafood and upping their marketing budgets, rather than investing in more sustainable and environmentally benign farming techniques.

But a small group of ocean farmers and scientists decided to chart a different course. Rather than relying on mono-aquaculture operations, these new ocean farms are pioneering muti-tropic and sea-vegetable aquaculture, whereby ocean farmers grow abundant, high-quality seafood while improving, rather than damaging, the environment.

One of the keys? Seaweed. This type of algae, which can be used for everything from food to fertilizer, could be a major piece of creating a network of sustainable farming operations:

Read more

ISU photo by Bob Elbert

Franken-algae may be key to reducing carbon emissions. But do they represent a different environmental threat?

Researchers at Iowa State University say they’ve unlocked a genetic pathway in algae that can dramatically increase the amount of CO2 consumed by the organisms, thus helping recycle more of the greenhouse gas and increasing oil yields for non-food based biofuels by as much as 50%.

Algae use two genes — LCIA and LCIB — to help them regulate CO2 intake. When growing in low-CO2 environments, these two genes are activated to help the organisms take in more of the gas to their cells. But when CO2 concentrations are high, the genes are shut off.

Researchers led by Iowa State Professor of Genetics Martin Spalding figured out how to keep those genes turned on all the time, turning this strain of algae (Chlamydomonas reinhardtii) into a CO2-sucking, biomass-producing machine:

Read more

Other stories below: CIA Urged to be More Open About Climate Change; Lawmakers Scrutinize Foreign Aid to China

Photo: Steve Weaver

TransCanada says it will work with Nebraska on new pipeline route

Will the airline industry push non-food based biofuels to scale? There are signs that the push is underway.

Earlier this week, United Airlines became the first air carrier in the U.S. to make a commercial flight using a 40% algae-based jet fuel from Solazyme. And today, Air Alaska is flying the nation’s second commercial biofuels flight, using a fuel containing a 20% cooking-oil-based feedstock produced by Dynamic Fuels. Air Alaska will be making 75 trips within the U.S. over the coming weeks using the cooking oil blend.

It’s not cheap though. The fuel used by Air Alaska is roughly six times more expensive than traditional jet fuel. But a spokeswoman for the Air Alaska, Megan Lawrence, tells Climate Progress that the company is looking at a suite of options to reduce emissions, and finding new fuels is one of them.

“We’re trying to show that there’s demand for the product,” she said. “We know that we have to get out in front of these issues.”

These two U.S. announcements come after a series of commercial flights around the world using a variety of non-food based biofuels. Over the last few months, air carriers in the Netherlands, UK, Germany, Finland, Mexico, Spain and China all flew commercial flights using a blend of advanced biofuels. The flights prove that biofuels are safe, and that airlines are getting serious about alternatives to petroleum fuels.

Biofuels reporter Jim Lane, who runs the site Biofuels Digest, thinks that the aviation industry could be a “quick win” for biofuel companies now reaching scale:

Read more

Many factors contribute to rising prices of food: Demand from rapidly-growing developing countries; droughts; energy prices; the value of the dollar; and, as a new report from Purdue University concludes, ethanol production.

While the Purdue researchers are careful to explain the phenomenon is caused by a combination of all these factors, the report targets two main culprits:  Chinese demand for soybeans and American ethanol. In 2010 and into this year, 27% of the U.S. corn crop went toward ethanol — up from 10% in 2005 and 2006.

[T]he demand surges from biofuels and Chinese soybean purchases appear to be persistent. While the demand shifts to date are expected to persist, the rate of increase in demand growth is expected to slow as corn biofuels mandates are reached and as China has built adequate soybeans stocks levels. This slowing of the demand surges may give world supply a better opportunity to catch up in coming years. Other events—such as additional demand growth, the degree of supply response, and macroeconomic variables—will all be important in determining how this cycle plays out.

[T]aking up around 27% of the corn crop (net of the by-product credit), there is little doubt that biofuels play a role in the corn price level and variability, and this has spilled over into other commodity markets. The RFS2 has been important in establishing ethanol production capacity and the minimum biofuels demand for corn realized today.

The researchers found, “Market inelasticity—a reduction in the responsiveness of prices to demand and supply forces—is one of the key mechanisms in today’s commodity markets.” They offer this remarkable chart of the  soaring amount of US crop acreage required to produce ethanol and soybeans for China:

Read more

Land grabbing, a practice in which governments buy or lease land outside their borders, is a growing threat to food security. In 2009, total land grabs around the world equaled the size of France, with much of that activity happening in developing countries.

Some of the land grabbers are surprising.  While the culprits are typically nations and/or investors, even  American universities like Harvard and Vanderbilt have been channeling endowment dollars through hedge funds to make huge land grabs in Africa.

Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations and current chairman of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, has been drawing attention to the tri-fold problem of climate change, food security, and land grabs, calling for an end to predatory land grabs.  In a recent lecture Annan criticized the practice:

Read more

UpStart [uhp-stahrt] n. 1. A company or organization with innovative approaches to energy use, carbon pollution, resource consumption, and/or social equity, 2. A company or organization overcoming market barriers to build the new clean energy economy.

Newton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Brooklyn New York, Photographs by Lisbeth Kaufman

by Lisbeth Kaufman

Waste water treatment is an expensive, energy-intensive process. But it’s also a potentially rich renewable energy source. A few fearless UpStarts are developing technologies and services that can convert dirty sewage sludge into clean energy, cutting pollution and costs while making a profit.

Companies like BlackGold Biofuels, XEBEC, Quasar, and EnerTech are taking the most vile waste products that clog sewers and erode critical infrastructure, and are turning that waste into a valuable resource of renewable energy.  Likewise, cities and regions such as San Francisco CA, Rialto CA, and Quebec, Canada are harvesting sewage to power the processing plants and generate a new stream of income.

The Problem
Sewage treatment and water access is a massive problem in developing countries like Kenya, where 72% of local government authorities lack sewerage systems.  According to the World Health Organization, 39% of the world’s population lacks access to basic sanitation and waste treatment.  And here in the U.S., sewage and waste sludge presents a major problem for water utilities across the country.

The U.S. produces 7 million dry tons of waste per year.  Managing this massive amount of waste is a heavy burden that occupies about 20% of the EPA’s entire budget and 4% of the nation’s electricity use.  According to the EPA, America is having difficulty keeping up with the growing amount of sludge (i.e poop) that Americans produce, as waste water investment needs have been rising at $11 billion per year.  According to a Clean Watersheds Needs Survey report to Congress from 2008, waste-water utilities will need to invest $298 billion over the next two decades to keep up services.

There’s also a heavy emissions cost to waste water treatment. Energy-related emissions in the U.S. resulting from POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works) operations – not including organic sludge degradation – led to 15.5 million tons of CO2-equivalents, with an acidification potential of 145 gigagrams [145,000 tons] (Gg) SO2 equivalents.

Read more

In yesterday’s Twitter town hall, President Obama spent a significant amount of time describing his vision for a clean energy economy. He said “we know” that clean energy manufacturing “is going to be the future,” and emphasized that his administration made “the largest investment in clean energy in our history through the Recovery Act.” He also mentioned the need for a smart, efficient electric grid and reducing tax subsidies for oil companies.

In a response to a question about oil dependence, Obama complained that “we have not seen a sense of urgency coming out of Congress.” He said he was “committed” to increasing domestic oil drilling, although the United States “can’t drill our way out of this problem.” With that caveat, the president called for a goal of reducing oil use in steps, mentioned his higher fuel economy standards, and said the Detroit bailout involved having the companies “start focusing on the cars of the future instead of looking at big gas guzzlers of the past.”

In an oblique, mangled reference to global warming pollution, Obama said reducing oil use would “drastically cut down on our carbon resources.”

CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENT

We’ve got to have a top-notch infrastructure to support advanced manufacturing, and we’ve got to look at sectors where we know this is going to be the future. Something like clean energy, for example. For us not to be the leaders in investing in clean energy manufacturing so that wind turbines and solar panels are not only designed here in the United States but made here in the United States makes absolutely no sense. We’ve got to invest in those areas for us to be successful.

So you can combine high-tech with manufacturing, and then you get the best of all worlds.

ADVANCED BATTERY MANUFACTURING

I want to promote alternative energy everywhere, including oil states like Louisiana and Texas. This is something that I’m very proud of and doesn’t get a lot of attention. We made the largest investment in clean energy in our history through the Recovery Act. And so we put forward a range of programs that provided credits and grants to startup companies in areas like creating wind turbines, solar panels.

A great example is advanced battery manufacturing. When I came into office, advanced batteries, which are used, for example, in electric cars, we only accounted for 2 percent of the world market in advanced batteries. And we have quintupled our market share, or even gone further, just over the last two years. And we’re projecting that we can get to 30 to 40 percent of that market. That’s creating jobs all across the Midwest, all across America.

And whoever wins this race on advanced battery manufacturing is probably going to win the race to produce the cars of the 21st century. China is investing in it. Germany is investing in it. We need to be investing in it as well.

SMART GRID INFRASTRUCTURE

It’s estimated that we have about $2 trillion worth of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt. Roads, bridges, sewer lines, water mains; our air traffic control system doesn’t make sense. We don’t have the kind of electric grid that’s smart, meaning it doesn’t waste a lot of energy in transmission. Our broadband system is slower than a lot of other countries.

OIL SUBSIDIES

The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.

REDUCING OIL DEPENDENCE

Reducing our dependence on oil is good for our economy, it’s good for our security, and it’s good for our planet — so it’s a “three-fer.” And we have not had a serious energy policy for decades. Every President talks about it; we don’t get it done.

Now, I’d like to see robust legislation in Congress that actually took some steps to reduce oil dependency. We’re not going to be able to replace oil overnight. Even if we are going full-throttle on clean energy solutions like solar and wind and biodiesel, we’re going to need oil for some time. But if we had a goal where we’re just reducing our dependence on oil each year in a staggered set of steps, it would save consumers in their pocketbook; it would make our businesses more efficient and less subject to the whims of the spot oil market; it would make us less vulnerable to the kinds of disruptions that have occurred because of what happened in the Middle East this spring; and it would drastically cut down on our carbon resources.

So what I — unfortunately, we have not seen a sense of urgency coming out of Congress over the last several months on this issue. Most of the rhetoric has been about, let’s produce more. Well, we can produce more, and I’m committed to that, but the fact is, we only have 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. We can’t drill our way out of this problem.

What we can do that we’ve already done administratively is increase fuel-efficiency standards on cars, just to take one example. That will save us millions of barrels of oil, just by using existing technologies and saying to car companies, you can do better than 10 miles a gallon or 15 miles a gallon. And you’re starting to see Detroit respond. U.S. car companies have figured out, you know what, if we produce high-quality electric vehicles, if we produce high-quality low gas — or high gas mileage vehicles, those will sell.

And we’re actually starting to see market share increase for American cars in subcompact and compact cars for the first time in many years. And that’s partly because we increased fuel-efficiency standards through an administrative agreement. It’s also because, as part of the deal to bail out the oil companies, we said to them, start focusing on the cars of the future instead of looking at big gas guzzlers of the past.

BIOFUELS

I’m a big supporter of biofuels. But one of the things that’s become clear is, is that we need to accelerate our basic research in ethanol and other biofuels that are made from things like woodchips and algae as opposed to just focusing on corn, which is probably the least efficient energy producer of these various other approaches.

And so I think that it’s important for even those folks in farm states who traditionally have been strong supporters of ethanol to examine are we, in fact, going after the cutting-edge biodiesel and ethanol approaches that allow, for example, Brazil to run about a third of its transportation system on biofuels. Now, they get it from sugar cane and it’s a more efficient conversion process than corn-based ethanol. And so us doing more basic research in finding better ways to do the same concept I think is the right way to go.