Google's new Blog Search homepage showed that the doomsday debate is hot (again?)

According to the Mayan calendar, the world (as we know it) is going to end in 2012. Or at least their calendar will.

So I want to know: What would you do TOMORROW if you only had a coupla years left on this planet to live?

This is the most promising headline I've read in a while. My father always said, "The momentum is going to end just like it did in the 70s. Money drives everything and when the gas prices went back down everyone forgot about energy conservation." Study Suggests That, Unlike in the ’70s, Energy Lessons Will Last
	Feb 5, 2008	New York Times
	CLIFFORD KRAUSS The oil shocks of the 1970s produced a flurry of attention to alternative sources of energy, but it faded once prices dropped in the mid-1980s. Now, with oil prices again high and climate change moving up the list of public concerns, interest in alternative energy is once again at fever pitch. Is history about to repeat itself? Not likely, according to a leading energy consulting firm. In a report scheduled for release Tuesday, the firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, concludes that multiple factors will continue pushing the world toward greater use of alternative energy sources like sun and wind power, regardless of what happens to oil prices. “The focus today on clean energy is not a bubble or passing phenomenon,” the report says. “Unconventional clean energy is now poised to cross the divide and move from the fringes of the energy sector to the mainstream.” What makes today different from the 1970s is growing apprehension about global warming as a threat to political security and the environment, according to the report. That is pushing governments to demand, and subsidize, greater use of alternative energy. “Climate change and putting a price on carbon will change the dynamics of the energy marketplace,” said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and a leading historian on the oil industry. He noted that with the Chinese and Indian economies growing rapidly, “you need renewables as part of the solution to meet this astonishing demand growth.” The report notes that renewable fuels will remain small compared with conventional fuels for many years, and their rate of adoption will be determined by the intersection of government policies, economic growth rates and technological breakthroughs. But the report projects that rising private and public investment in clean energy — including biofuels like ethanol; renewable power, including wind, geothermal and solar generation; nuclear energy; and techniques to capture and store carbon emissions — could surpass $7 trillion by 2030. In 2007, roughly $125 billion was invested in such energy sources worldwide, said Robert LaCount, lead author of the report, about 20 percent more than the year before. Other analysts say there is no guarantee energy in the future will be cleaner because renewable energy is effectively in a race with other unconventional sources, like liquefied coal, Canadian oil sands and oil shale, which emit higher amounts of carbon dioxide than conventional hydrocarbons. While several major oil companies have joined smaller firms in investing in wind, geothermal and solar energy sources, they are investing far more money at the moment in oil sands. Environmentalists at the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pembina Institute have estimated that at least 20 percent of the pollution reductions coming from the new vehicle fuel economy standards law, which Congress passed in 2007, would be negated by the additional production and refining of oil sands in Canada by 2020. “Producing more low carbon fuels is all well and good, but their benefits can be washed out if we don’t tackle the threat of high carbon fuels like oil sands at the same time,” said Deron Lovaas, an analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Development of renewable energy sources has taken significant leaps. The American wind industry, for example, expanded its generating capacity 45 percent last year, generating enough power for 1.5 million households. Accounting for 30 percent of the new American power-production capacity last year, wind reached 1 percent of the country’s electricity supply, according to data from the American Wind Energy Association. A recent study by Emerging Energy Research, another Cambridge consulting firm, estimated that as much as $65 billion would be invested in additional wind power from 2007 to 2015, producing a compound annual growth rate of 15.7 percent. The Cambridge Energy Research Associates study projects that installed capacity of geothermal power should increase by 50 percent or more in the next five years as the number of countries using it doubles, to more than 40. . The study also noted serious limitations for clean energy development. It estimated that “meaningful deployment” of technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions is at least two decades away. It acknowledged the challenges for nuclear power “with regard to policy, capital costs, waste management — and public opinion.”

According to the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, it looks like program budgets are going up for Energy Efficiency programs exceeding 3.7 billion. That's right. That's a B for billion. This takes into account Canada as well. I am hoping south of the border can be quoted next year as it will be interesting what Mexico is doing around this. I went to CEE last month and found it very helpful in learning the landscape. It gave me a lot of insight and their website is very helpful resource.

2007 Efficiency Program Budgets Exceed $3.7 Billion
CEE Reports on Budget Data for Third Year

This year’s report on the size of efficiency program industry in 2007 shows the magnitude of programs in both the U.S. and Canada. Taken together, these programs, all ratepayer-funded, are now an industry, shaping both supply and demand for efficient products in both markets.

U.S. programs reached $3.1 billion, an 18 percent increase over 2006. While Canada has long sponsored efficiency programs, this is the first year the data have been aggregated in one place. Canada adds another $.6 billion, bringing the total to $3.7 billion. Budgets include commercial and industrial, residential, low income, and load management programs, along with the other expenditures necessary in different regions with varying conditions.

The impact of these programs is also available for 2006. The efficiency program industry saved Canadian and U.S. ratepayers an astounding $5.4 billion in 2006. That figure is based on energy savings of 59,800 GWh of electricity and 162.6 million therms of gas. Thus, efficiency programs abated 36 million metric tonnes of CO2, an increase of 7 million tonnes over 2005 savings.

The CEE report is available in two formats. You can request a printed overview report from CEE, or you can visit the Web site at http://www.cee1.org/ee-pe/2007/index.php3 for details by state, region, and province and by sector.



CEE
CEE is a consortium that brings together efficiency program administrators from across the U.S. and Canada to discover, through conversation, credible, unbiased solutions to issues in the efficiency program industry. As a collective entity, the individual efficiency programs of CEE are able to partner not only with each other, but with other industries, trade associations, and government agencies. By working together at CEE, administrators multiply the effect of their funding dollars, exchange information on best practices and, by doing so, achieve greater energy efficiency for the public good.

Very interesting website...I'd like to know what the downfall to it is. ie. what environmental impact?

http://nomowgrass.com/index.htm?gclid=CITH7JWX55ACFQNCgwod1iw7Ww

NoMowGrass - Eco Friendly, Safe for children & pets.

Easy to maintain, easy to plant.
Once established, NoMowGrass uses less water and energy than high maintenance grasses. . . and ZERO pollution.

Easy to plant over existing lawn or on bare soil.
Naturally short NoMowGrass deters rodent and snakes usually found to hide in taller grasses. Typical blade height is only 3 - 6 inches high.

Yes - it is real grass!

Having a background in communications, I am a sucker for 'wow factor' and for 'factoids. Occasionally I will post just some facts, to have this blog be a resource for such things.

DID YOU KNOW?

Today, US utilities operate about 420 MW of centralized solar generating capacity in California, Nevada, and Colorado. 80% of this capacity has operated efficiently for over 20 years.

The message from Bush is clear. They don't want the U.S. to have a patchwork of state-level policies while ignoring the national issue. But the message from the states is also clear, that the citizens within each state, and within our country, are ready to act responsibly with or without federal mandate. The fact that the states are actually suing now reminds us all of how democracy really works, at the legal level. This is at least a step in the right direction. Now we just have to wait for Bush to leave office to align our country. I agree that a patchwork is not the answer, but if it doesn't hurt, why would the feds try to curb responsible states? You should get bonuses based on it, tax breaks, incentives, rebates, etc. This underlines to me the conflict of interest of economy and ecology in our population. The two are currently separated but should be defined as a common good. Happy 2008!

	California Sues EPA Over Emissions Rules
	Jan 3, 2008	Washington Post
	California Sues EPA Over Emissions Rules 15 Other States Back Effort to Win Waiver to Allow the Setting of Tougher Standards By Keith B. Richburg Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, January 3, 2008; A02 NEW YORK, Jan. 2 -- California, joined by 15 other states led by New York, sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday over its refusal to allow the state to set its own, tougher vehicle-emissions standards to control greenhouse gases and combat global warming. The suit, to which Maryland is a party, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco two weeks after the EPA's decision to turn down California's request for a waiver that would have allowed it to begin implementing a landmark 2004 state law limiting carbon dioxide output from cars, trucks and SUVs. That law would require new vehicles to cut tailpipe emissions by a third by 2016, which California officials said would result in a fuel-efficiency standard of 36.8 miles per gallon. Such waivers have been routinely granted to California under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which allows the Golden State to set its own air-pollution standards with federal approval. As a result, California has often been a national leader in developing air-quality protections. In denying the waiver this time, EPA Director Stephen L. Johnson said following a single federal policy rather than having a confusing patchwork of state laws would be a more efficient way to combat global warming. In December, President Bush signed an energy bill that will raise vehicle fuel-efficiency standards nationwide to 35 mpg by 2020, four years later than the California mandate. Johnson called that approach a better way to address vehicles' contributions to the greenhouse-gas buildup. In filing the lawsuit, California Attorney General Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. (D) said, "There's absolutely no justification for the administrator's action," the Associated Press reported. "It's illegal. It's unconscionable and a gross dereliction of duty. "To curb the innovative efforts of California and other states makes no sense," Brown said in an interview. In New York, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced that his state will lead a coalition of 15 states backing California's legal right to set its own environmental standards in the face of what he called inaction at the federal level. "The EPA's attempt to stop New York and other states from taking on global warming pollution from automobiles is shameful," Cuomo said in a statement. "By denying New York the right to set global warming emissions standards for cars, the Bush administration is intentionally obstructing our efforts to combat climate change." The EPA's deputy press secretary, Jonathan Shradar, said in a statement: "As the Administrator indicated when announcing his intention to deny the California waiver request, under the recently signed Energy bill we now have a more beneficial national approach to a national problem which establishes an aggressive standard for all 50 states, as opposed to a lower standard in California and a patchwork of other states." He referred questions to the Justice Department. Besides Maryland and New York, the other states and agencies that joined the suit are Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Also yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sent a letter to the EPA inspector general's office asking for a formal investigation into how the decision was made to deny California the waiver. In the letter to Deputy Inspector General Bill A. Roderick, Feinstein said the agency's administrator appears to have "deviated from standard Administration protocols in making this unprecedented decision," among other things by ignoring the advice of the EPA's technical staff and consulting with the White House before denying the waiver.

I was very pleased to see this article about Florida posted today in one of the dozens of newsletters on energy efficiency I pore through.

Having most of my family in Florida now I was always wondering exactly how green, or not green, Florida was. Seeing so many Hummers and pickups driving around, I feared awareness of the mortality of our environment by Florida citizens was low, or even that they were in denial or didn't care, and maybe they were even behind (or blind) on green state-level leadership, as opposed to such locations as northwest and western states (Oregon, California, etc.), or even such places as the city of New York.

So glad to see the governor of Florida trying to step it up.

Florida took on new role in '07 on energy issues
	Dec 31, 2007	The Palm Beach Post
	By Kristi E. Swartz Dec. 30, 2007 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- At the beginning of this year, Florida was going to be the home of several new coal-fired power plants, including one in Glades County that would be the largest in the United States. Solar- and wind-power projects were nonexistent in the state, no ethanol plants were on the drawing board, and the phrase "low-carbon economy" sounded like something out of an episode of Star Trek. But everything changed in February, when Terry Tamminen went to Tallahassee at the behest of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps the nation's greenest governor. "In the environmental community, folks believed that Florida was prime for some leadership on climate change," said Jerry Karnas, Florida Climate Project director for New York-based Environmental Defense. "We felt the door had creaked open, and we had an opportunity at that point." Tamminen, who had been secretary of California's Environmental Protection Agency, and other clean-energy (NASDAQ:CLNE) advocates sat down with newly inaugurated GOP Gov. Charlie Crist. The goal was to get Crist to mention, during his State of the State address, the crisis of climate change. To the pleasant surprise of the environmental community, Crist went them one better. Global warming, Crist said during his March speech, is one of the world's most pressing issues. But then he called for a group of leaders to meet during the summer to figure out ways that Florida could be more energy-independent and reduce the amount of carbon emissions entering the atmosphere. "It was such a refreshing change of pace," said Susan Glickman, Southern regional director for London-based environmental organization The Climate Group. "Crist broke through the old, conceived notions of what's possible for Florida." Things ramped up even more during a two-day climate change summit the governor hosted in July. Schwarzenegger, Theodore Roosevelt IV and Robert Kennedy Jr. were among the main speakers. At the meeting, held in Miami, Crist signed executive orders requiring the state to slash greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 and mandating that utilities get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable fuels. State-owned buildings needed to be energy-efficient, he said, and Florida's fleet needed to run on clean-burning fuel such as ethanol. He also told the Florida Public Service Commission to get busy figuring out how residents can get reimbursed for excess electricity they generate, as a way to encourage Floridians to add solar energy and other renewables to their homes. At the end, what Crist had done was begin to move the state -- and its power companies -- away from an energy plan that relied on fossil fuels such as coal to meet the electricity needs of its growing population. No one felt that shift in emphasis more acutely than Florida Power & Light Co. (NYSE:FPL) In June, the PSC rejected Glades Power Park, a 1,960-megawatt twin-unit coal-fired power plant. FPL regrouped, filing for permission to add nuclear plants in Miami-Dade County and floating suggestions for wind turbines in St. Lucie County. "We believe additional nuclear power, new solar power (OTCBB:SOPW) projects and efforts to bring wind power to Florida make sense because those energy sources produce no greenhouse gases," FPL President Armando Olivera said in a statement. What also changed was FPL's usual rejoinder to proposals for more solar and wind power capability: Florida's too cloudy, and solar technology is too expensive. And it's not windy enough here, either. FPL denies any shift in thinking, touting its long time energy-conservation programs and arguing that its sister company, FPL Energy LLC, is among the world's top producers of alternative energy. "Our focus hasn't changed," Olivera wrote. "At FPL, we are committed to being part of the solution to global warming, and for years, we've been a nationally recognized clean-energy and energy-conservation leader." Certainly, FPL's parent company sought a much higher profile on this issue in 2007. FPL Group Chief Executive Lew Hay III carved out a portion of the Fortune 250 company's annual shareholders meeting in May to talk about climate change and testified before Congress in June on placing a fee on carbon as the way to get industries to clean up. FPL Group also joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership -- a consortium of 10 businesses and four clean-energy groups -- to push for a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. And in September, Hay announced a $2.4 billion clean-energy program that included the building of a 300-megawatt solar plant in Florida. "FPL at the beginning of the year was pushing one of the nation's largest pulverized coal plants, and at the end of the year is looking at solar technology," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Knoxville, Tenn. All of this is in keeping with the nation's heightened attention to renewable sources of energy. But Florida continues to steadily draw people from other states, and the demand for energy will continue to increase. "It's great to have objectives, it's great to have renewables, we have to do that," said Frank Maisano, a Washington-area spokesman for the utility industry. "But you also have to have a view of the larger picture that includes the type of unchecked growth that Florida is going through." That means it will be a challenge for Florida's leaders to keep a commitment to alternative forms of energy while at the same time keeping the air-conditioning running and the lights on. "No matter how much you do with renewables, you're never going to be able to do enough," said Tommy Boroughs, executive director of the Florida Energy Commission and a member of the Governor's Energy Action Team, which was created by one of his executive orders. "What we're talking about doing, it's not going to be quick, it's not going to be easy, it's not going to be cheap. But the sooner we start off, the better." Moving into 2008, utility regulators have to settle on what's known as a renewable-portfolio standard -- the details of requiring utilities to get a certain percentage of their fuel from things such as biomass, solar and wind. Without that, companies won't want to build wood waste-processing plants or solar arrays because the banks won't pony up the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to finance them without a sure buyer of that electricity. "People say it's naturally going to happen. Well, people aren't going to make it happen unless people realize there is a long-term commitment from the state," said Gaston Cantens, vice president of West Palm Beach-based Florida Crystals Inc., which operates a waste-to-energy plant in its sugar cane fields. Cantens says having a renewable-portfolio standard in Florida will create a market for biomass and other alternative fuels. Throughout the year, utility regulators held meetings on how to increase the amount of energy the state gets from renewable sources. "When you look at the need the state has, we have a growing energy demand, and we need to balance how we meet that demand with cost, energy security, energy diversification ... a number of things we've done over the past two years puts us in a better place," said Lisa Edgar, outgoing chairwoman of the five-member PSC. "It's certainly been an exciting year for energy issues, and I think the commission has done good work." And on the final day of the year Monday, state legislators will get a list of recommendations from the Florida Energy Commission to take up during the legislative session. "This was really a historical year for Florida. How do we continue the momentum?" Smith said. "There are a lot of folks that can be obstructionist to where the governor goes -- the state legislature and the utilities are going to be big players in that. But I'm optimistic." Newstex ID: KRTB-0164-21967823