Worldwatch Institute

Clean Energy Poised to Phase Out Coal and Avert Catastrophic Climate Change

admin — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:52:08 -0500

Washington, D.C.- New technologies will permit rapid decarbonization of the world energy economy in the next two decades, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute. These new energy sources will make it possible to retire hundreds of coal-fired power plants that now provide 40 percent of the world's power by 2030, eliminating up to one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions while creating millions of new jobs.

"We no longer need to say ‘in the future' when talking about a low-carbon energy system," says Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch and author of the report, Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap. "These technologies-unlike carbon-capture facilities-are being deployed now and are poised to make the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels obsolete."

Reducing dependence on fossil fuels will not only strike a defiant blow to the climate crisis, it will also act as an agent of recovery for an ailing global economy. Rebuilding the global energy system has the potential to create thousands of new businesses and millions of new jobs, starting immediately.

Decarbonizing the energy economy requires several key steps: the accelerated deployment of solar, wind, and biomass power plants; integrating variable power sources with digital smart grids that are more flexible in their ability to balance demand and supply; developing the capacity to store energy economically; and selectively adding a new generation of efficient micro power plants that provide heat as well as reliable electricity when it is needed.

The new report provides an overview of the state of renewable energy technologies as well as a roadmap charting their role in the transition to a low-carbon economy:

Buildings consume about 40 percent of global energy and emit a comparable share of carbon dioxide emissions. With technologies available today, such as more-efficient lighting and appliances and improved walls and windows, the energy needs of buildings can be reduced by 70 percent or more, with the investment paid for via lower energy bills.
Two-thirds of the energy contained in the fuel for most power plants is converted to waste heat or lost in distribution. Combined heat and power (CHP) can reduce those losses to less than 20 percent and provide the United States with 150 gigawatts of generating capacity-more than nuclear power now provides.
In 2007, wind power represented 40 percent of new generating capacity installations in Europe and 35 percent in the United States. Wind power now costs just under six cents per kilowatt-hour on average-less than natural gas and roughly even with coal.
An area covering less than 4 percent of the Sahara Desert could produce enough solar power to match global electricity demand.
Investment in new renewable electric and heating capacity equaled an estimated $71 billion in 2007, up from just $20 billion in 2002.
By 2006, the U.S. renewables industry had created 386,000 jobs compared with 82,000 jobs in the coal industry.
The development of smart electricity grids, the integration of plug-in electric vehicles, and the addition of limited storage capacity will allow power to be provided without the "baseload" plants that are the foundation of today's electricity systems.

Resource estimates show that renewable energy is more abundant than all the fossil fuels combined. This abundance, together with improved technology and high energy prices, has created an extraordinarily favorable market for new energy systems in the past few years.

The immediate challenge for the U.S. Obama Administration and other governments is to maintain the extraordinary momentum of the past few years in the face of a financial crisis that has affected all forms of energy investment. The new industries, which are dominated by small, under-capitalized companies, are particularly vulnerable. Their success will depend on targeted and flexible policy design in the months ahead.

"We are on the verge of an energy revolution," says Flavin. "With strong political leadership, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use policy and technology innovation to stave off the greatest human-caused threat our planet has seen."

Clinton Picked to Oversee Population Policies

Ben Block — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0500

Reproductive health advocates are praising the nomination of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as the next U.S. secretary of state.

President-elect Barack Obama's nomination on Monday of Clinton, a longtime champion of women's rights around the globe, suggests that international reproductive health policies may be a high priority in the Obama administration, family planning leaders said.

"She's been a strong advocate for sexual and reproductive health rights throughout all her years on the federal level, and I expect her to carry that through in her new job," said Susan Cohen, government affairs director at the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice think tank.

Although Clinton's agenda will likely be dominated by the diplomatic challenges of a global war on terror, she is expected to restore U.S. leadership on issues of population, human rights, and environmental enforcement if the Congress approves her nomination.

"She recognizes how important [reproductive rights] are to an overall foreign policy agenda," said Brian Dixon, vice president of government relations at Population Connection. "Her commitment to this is undeniable. I don't think she's going to allow it to slide too far down the list of things to be worked on."

Although Clinton's leadership would have to remain consistent with the decisions of President Obama, as secretary of state she would be able to influence global reproductive health priorities through department policies and - assuming the department's organizational structure is unchanged - through U.S. Agency for International Development funding.

The Obama administration follows eight years of U.S. opposition to several key reproductive health programs due to their support-both direct and indirect-of abortion rights.

President George W. Bush enforced a so-called "gag rule" that banned U.S.-funded international family planning groups from counseling women about abortion services in countries where abortion is allowed or outlawed. The Bush administration also cut all funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2002 - an annual loss of $21.5 million for contraception and other reproductive health services.

The Obama White House is expected to reverse several of Bush's reproductive health policies. During the campaign season, Obama insisted he would support abortion rights and "reduce unintended pregnancy by guaranteeing equity in contraceptive coverage," according to his Blueprint for Change [PDF].

The Clinton nomination further suggests that Obama would revert to the international family planning policies of the Clinton years. As a senator, Clinton introduced legislation to restore the UNFPA funding, and as a first lady, she led support for the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, a 1994 meeting that resulted in a goal to make family planning universally available by 2015. President Bush ended U.S. support for the goal during his first term in office.

"We have every expectation that the Obama administration will reverse [the global gag rule] early in the administration soon after he's inaugurated," said Craig Lasher, a senior policy analyst at Population Action International (PAI). "Also, restoring the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund, we anticipate that happens early in the administration as well."

The United States, the world's largest donor to international reproductive health services, has provided a relatively steady level of funding over the past decade: $454.8 million in 1996, $446.5 million in 2001, and $458.1 million in 2006, according to PAI. The UNFPA, however, called for increased funding earlier this year to provide some 200 million women with access to effective family planning.

The Obama administration's support for abortion rights has already stirred criticism from Catholic leaders in the United States. "Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation, and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion," said Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement released last month.

Clinton's leadership will also affect U.S. diplomatic efforts during international negotiations of a climate treaty to follow the Kyoto Protocol. While campaigning for president, Clinton vowed she would cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 through a national cap-and-trade system - a promise that Obama made as well and continues to support.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Poznań, Day 1: Beginnings of a “Shared Vision”

Amanda Chiu — Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:28:03 -0500

I am writing from Poznań, Poland, where the 14th Conference of Parties (COP 14) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has begun. The energy in the conference center is exhilarating, and you can feel the wheels churning in everyone's minds as they work toward a "shared vision" for the next climate change agreement in Copenhagen.

The COP process has only one year before it must produce a climate change agreement that will reduce global emissions to a level that would avoid catastrophic changes to the world as we know it. We as a planet have very little time before we irreversibly alter our environment. Both industrialized and developing countries must agree to an emissions reduction goal by next year, and they have several tools to do so. In the end, Poznań must deliver a clear program of work for 2009 and send a strong signal to the world and participating governments that it is time to stop dawdling, to buckle down, and to get to work.

As the halfway point between the 2007 "Bali Roadmap" and the 2009 Copenhagen agreement where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol - the second commitment period under Kyoto - will hopefully be anointed, hopes are high but expectations are mixed. Poznań and the path to Copenhagen face plenty of challenges: the world is in the midst of the financial crisis, the U.S. delegation is on "standby mode," the Obama administration may not be ready yet to sign a climate change agreement come December 2009, and current EU climate negotiations are on uncertain footing. Even Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, expressed concerns that a Copenhagen agreement might not be ready.

There is still hope and cautious optimism amid all this turmoil, and a need for strong political will. An important outcome of COP 13 in Bali-developing countries expressing an interest and willingness to take action-is still carrying through even a year later in Poznań. And today is but the first day, full primarily of approving work plans for the next two weeks.

The COP started with positive statements regarding the outcomes of this conference. The view that the current financial crisis is an incredible opportunity has taken hold, and opening remarks by the Prime Minister of Denmark, also the President of COP 13, noted that the crisis is not a good excuse for inaction. Indeed, talks of a "green deal" to revive economies and create jobs worldwide have spread across the world. My colleagues at Worldwatch have put a lot of thought into green jobs and a green deal, and these ideas could soon be transformed into action.

People here are understandably curious about Obama, the new administration, and how these fit into the negotiations. A look of disappointment and concern are the usual responses when I tell them that, as Obama has pointed out multiple times, there is only one President of the United States at a time. The U.S. delegation here is from the Bush administration. As of late this afternoon, they have not spoken up in any of the sessions. I am not the only person wondering what they will say when they do engage.

The real buzz in Poznań today, however, surrounds the European Union, Canada, and the UK, and it is occurring outside of the COP:

With EU climate negotiations currently under way in Brussels as well, France, which holds the presidency of the EU, is having a difficult time passing the climate change package championed primarily by itself and Germany. Last spring, the EU proposed a 30-percent emissions reduction target below 1990 levels by 2020 in the presence of an international deal, and a 20-percent target if the region mitigated its emissions alone. But now, some countries are considering backing out of their 30 percent commitments even if there is an agreement in Copenhagen. The EU has so far been a strong leader of climate change mitigation, but it seems very tempted to relinquish that title. The implications for Poznań and the road to Copenhagen could be serious.
On a different note, Canada is on the brink of having a coalition government replace the ruling conservative party that was re-elected not long ago. This coalition government is expected to be much more agreeable to preventing catastrophic levels of climate change.
And last week, the United Kingdom adopted a Climate Change Bill that set a national emissions reduction target of at least 42 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 with a Copenhagen agreement; otherwise, the target is 34 percent, which equates to the UK portion of the 30 percent by 2020 mentioned above. This is indeed exciting news, as the UK will be one-upping targets set in Germany and Norway by 2 percent.

Meanwhile in Poznań, Dr. R.K. Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reminded delegates in his opening comments of the emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a target that the scientific community is increasingly calling for. The climate change powers that be are in motion!

My first day at my first COP has been a whirlwind of excitement and jetlag, and I am pretty tired. But now I am off to a reception that the COP 14 hosts are holding in my (and all other participants') honor. I shouldn't keep them waiting!

Amanda Chiu is a MAP Sustainable Energy Fellow at the Worldwatch Institute.

Survey: Strong Support for Emissions Reductions

Ben Block — Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:59:57 -0500

As international leaders convene in Poland for two weeks of climate negotiations, recent surveys suggest a global consensus for governments to reduce their country's emissions.

Despite increased financial instability, residents of both the industrialized and developing worlds are in favor of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy, according to two public opinion polls released late last month.

More than three-quarters of respondents polled across 11 nations and Hong Kong in a survey released on Wednesday support emissions-reduction targets that are at least as ambitious as the promises of other countries, according to the HSBC Climate Partnership, a collaboration of business and environmental groups.

Asked whether their government should reduce emissions as much or more than other nations, on average 77 percent of respondents were in favor. Polls from Canada, Australia, and Brazil suggested above average support among residents there. Responses were also favorable in China (62 percent) and the United States (72 percent).

"This research demonstrates the need for decisive action on climate change," said Nicholas Stern, an HSBC adviser and former World Bank chief economist, in a prepared statement.

Leaders from the surveyed nations are meeting in Poznań, Poland, this week to negotiate a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The conference serves as a midway point in the negotiation process. At last year's meeting in Bali, Indonesia, leaders agreed to finalize the treaty by next December's climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

In addition to supporting reduced emissions, on average 77 percent of respondents of a University of Maryland-managed survey said they support greater government emphasis on solar and wind energy, according to the 21-nation poll. The study found majority support for clean energy in 20 of the surveyed nations.

Asked whether their governments should require electric utilities to use more solar or wind energy, even if the transition increases energy costs, all nations were in favor except for Russia (36 percent support) and Azerbaijan (48 percent), two major oil producers. Support was highest in South Korea (96 percent), France (88 percent), and Kenya (87 percent).

The HSBC Climate Partnership survey also reflected growing international support for renewable energy. When asked how their government should address climate change, respondents rated clean energy investments as the highest priority in seven of the 12 regions surveyed. Respondents in all regions except for China said their governments were not currently doing enough to accelerate alternative energy sources.

The University of Maryland study, a collaborative research project of WorldPublicOpinion.org, noted that support for coal or oil-fired power plants also remains high. Germany is the only country where a majority of survey respondents, 62 percent, said their government should place less emphasis on these fossil fuel energy sources.

The 188 world leaders in attendance at Poznań are expected to debate several new policies to better transfer clean energy technologies to the developing world. Several funding options will also be discussed.

The HSBC Climate Partnership, conducted in September, polled 6,000 people from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and 6,000 online respondents from Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, and Mexico.

The WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, conducted between July 15 and November 4, surveyed 20,790 people from Argentina, Azerbaijan, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Macau, Mexico, Nigeria, the Palestinian Territories, Poland, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United States. It had a sampling error of plus or minus 2-4 percent.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to republish this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

“Efficient” Irrigation Tool May Deplete More Water

Ben Block — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0500

An Israeli water engineer was sitting under a tree one day when he noticed a leaking faucet slowly drip water to the tree's roots, a nearly 50-year-old irrigation tale says.

The idea inspired the invention of modern drip irrigation, also known as micro-irrigation. The method runs water through plastic tubes that release the flow through small holes directly to crop roots or stems.

The precise application allows drip-irrigated crops to be watered more frequently than with traditional sprinkler methods. Yet farmers waste fewer resources because most water is absorbed through transpiration. As a result, many governments have encouraged drip irrigation as a water-conserving technology that can boost crop yields.

But drip irrigation may have a downside, according to a study published in last week's Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. In traditional flood or sprinkler irrigation, "wasted" water - the water not absorbed by crops - seeps into the ground and recharges the below-surface aquifers used by area farmers. As drip irrigation becomes more common, recharge of groundwater may be less frequent, the study said.

"I think it's very true that drip irrigation and drip irrigation subsidies definitely contribute to food security and increased farm income," said Frank Ward, the study's co-author and a professor of water resource economics at New Mexico State University. "The only downside...is that drip irrigation could be using more water."

If Ward's study is true for areas beyond the study's focus area - the U.S. Rio Grande Basin - agricultural development organizations may need to evaluate whether costly drip irrigation is truly an efficient technique, the study said. This is of particular concern as global food crises and water shortages force many regions to decide between growing food or conserving water.

The Stockholm International Water Institute estimates that feeding the world's undernourished population and the additional 3 billion people expected by 2050 will require 50 percent more water resources than today.

The vast majority of the world's available fresh water - some 70 percent, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - is withdrawn for agricultural usage. Most crops are not irrigated with the drip method due to higher costs. In the United States and Spain, where the technology is used most, it comprises 6.75 and 2.75 percent of the total irrigated area, respectively, according to the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.

But drip irrigation is becoming more popular. More farmers in the United States, the Middle East, and North Africa are turning to the technology, especially to grow permanent tree and orchard crops.

Ward first became aware of drip irrigation's potential to diminish water reserves when several irrigation engineers, farming consultants, and water agency administrators in the Rio Grande Basin informed him of the problem. They told Ward that farmers who adopted the technology were using a larger portion of the region's groundwater. "They worried [that] farmers would conserve themselves right out of an aquifer," he said.

After initially dismissing the concerns, Ward and Spanish researcher Manuel Pulido-Velazquez created a model of the basin's hydrology. The model included the total water diverted from streams, applied to crops, evaporated into the air, and returned to the ground.

At maximum levels of drip irrigation subsidies (the U.S. government offers subsidies to offset the technology's higher cost), the analysis concluded that farmers in the irrigation district would apply 40,000 acre-feet (49.3 million cubic meters) less of water per year. Yet due to the loss of "wasted water" and the additional water demands associated with the higher yields of drip irrigation, the entire district would face a deficit of 36,700 acre-feet (45.3 million cubic meters) of water per year.

"Farmers themselves believe they are using less water," Ward said. "They apply less, but because plants unknowingly may use more, they deplete more."

Not all researchers are convinced. "It's an absurd proposition," said Mahbub Alam, an irrigation specialist at Kansas State University. "Drip is the answer to be able to manage water much better and still have good production and do more with less."

In addition to questioning the study's model, Alam said that irrigation water obtained directly from a stream is more valuable than any runoff harnessed downstream, due to the mix of chemicals applied to most farmland. "Assumption that degraded water from return flow has the same value as the pristine water left in the stream by [increased use of drip irrigation] cannot be correct," he said.

But the efficiency of drip irrigation varies considerably by region and crop. In some Great Plains states, for instance, farmers who use a spray irrigation method known as center pivot often lose much of their water to evaporation. In contrast, if drip irrigation is used, the application often occurs below the surface and very little water evaporates, said Charles Burt, chairman of the Irrigation Training and Research Center at California Polytechnic State University.

"In Kansas and Texas, it is entirely possible, but not guaranteed ...that evapotranspiration under drip is less than with pivot because it depends on the management and design of the sprinklers," Burt said. With less water vanishing into the air, he explained, crops would lose less water than Ward estimated in his study of New Mexico.

In California, however, Burt supports the study's findings. "Let's face it. You don't irrigate to save water," he said. "[With drip irrigation], overall there is higher consumption."

Yet drip irrigation's significant boost for crop yields cannot be ignored. California has become the world's No. 1 producer of almonds over the past 30 years, due in part to the increased reliance on drip irrigation. Almond farmers have required some 15-20 percent more water, but average yields nearly doubled, said Blake Sanden, an irrigation farm advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension.

"You cannot produce high-yield crops without a fairly significant input of water," Sanden said. "In the end of the day, hungry people will win the game."

In addition to irrigation technologies, farmers' crop decisions play a significant role in water conservation outcomes. Rice, for example, uses about twice as much water per hectare as wheat, according to the FAO.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

OPINION: A Green Deal for Transportation

Michael Renner — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:12:32 -0500

In early 1942, the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt directed the entire U.S. auto industry to make a sudden and wholesale switch from producing cars to churning out tanks, armored cars, tank engines, and aircraft propellers. Close to 4 million vehicles had rolled off assembly lines the previous year, but emergency wartime priorities brought the nation's auto production to zero for three years as the sale of private cars was banned. After World War II ended, the reconversion from a wartime economy to a peacetime economy was carried out with equal speed, accompanied by careful planning.

Today, facing an emergency of a different nature, it is imperative to consider a similar break with business-as-usual. Over the past half-century, automobile manufacturers in the United States and the rest of the world expanded production from 8 million vehicles in 1950 to some 74 million in 2007. The industry has grown to become a major driver of climate change. The U.S. "Big Three" manufacturers - GM, Ford, and Chrysler - have for two decades peddled oversized, gas-gulping SUVs that were good for short-term profits but lethal for the planet. This strategy has left Detroit with few options now that the financial crisis, rollercoaster oil prices, and unease about peak oil are weighing heavily on consumers' minds.

Facing bankruptcy, the Big Three are now asking for a government bailout. Public and Congressional opinion has been skeptical, but Barack Obama may respond more favorably after he becomes president. The decision is not an easy one: an open-ended rescue rewards corporate failure, yet rejecting any sort of intervention risks massive job loss. Even so, there is a silver lining. Taking the 1940s experience to heart, this is a generational opportunity to revolutionize the industry - and more broadly, to reinvent transportation policy for sustainability. It is time for a strategic overhaul aimed at boosting vehicle fuel economy and reviving the long-neglected public transportation sector.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards remained largely unchanged from the mid-1980s until December 2007, when Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The law raised the combined standard for new cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Given that only 1.5 percent of vehicles sold in the United States in 2008 rated 35 mpg or more, this seems an appropriate challenge. Yet the more-efficient models produced in Japan and Europe today, and the fact that even a newcomer such as China has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards than the United States, suggest that Washington should adopt far more ambitious targets - at least 50 mpg by 2020, with continued improvements in later years.

An injection of public resources into the auto industry should take place under stringent conditions:

Replace current management at the Big Three, and impose limits on executive compensation.
Mandate that R&D and commercialization efforts are focused unequivocally on developing high-efficiency vehicles. This effort could entail more-efficient gasoline/diesel-powered cars, as well as hybrids and plug-ins (along with mandatory limits on vehicle weight and engine power).
Outlaw the sale of vehicles that do not achieve a minimal level of fuel efficiency, with a floor that rises each year on an ambitious sliding scale.
Buy up the least efficient vehicles currently on the road - in recognition of their "built-in" consumption that will otherwise drag down average fleet fuel efficiency for years.
Offer tax rebates or other incentives for consumers who purchase the most-efficient models.

A green transportation policy also needs to look beyond autos and to rebalance the transportation system. Unlike other industrialized countries, the United States features a passenger rail system that occupies little more than a niche and is burdened by outdated tracks, ancient locomotives, and archaic signal systems. Aside from a handful of cities, urban mass transit remains limited, largely a consequence of land-use policies that have led to sprawling settlements. And decades of neglect have led to a situation where the country lacks even the capacity to manufacture modern locomotives and rolling stock domestically.

A green transportation overhaul would overcome these handicaps by:

Making substantial and sustained investments in rail and light rail (while limiting highway spending principally to repairs of crumbling infrastructure such as bridges).
Dedicating adequate R&D budgets to developing modern rail and bus technologies.
Converting part of the bloated car-manufacturing capacities to produce rail and mass transit systems.
Overhauling land-use policies to stimulate denser settlements that permit public transit, reduce reliance on motorized transportation, and make biking and walking realistic options.

Overall, such a course would stimulate innovation, reduce carbon emissions and air pollutants, inject urban and suburban areas with new vigor and vitality, and generate or retain large numbers of well-paying jobs.

Michael Renner is a senior researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental research organization. He is a co-author of the recent Worldwatch report Green Jobs: Working for People and the Environment.

Climate Protests Escalate Worldwide

Ben Block — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:39:20 -0500

Lynne Purvis stood apart at a Ritz Carlton cocktail party Thursday night.

Surrounded by coal, oil, and natural gas executives at a Bank of America energy conference in Key Biscayne, Florida, Purvis and her six friends had not been invited. Armed with banners and signs, they still made their presence known.

"Bank of America forgot to put alternative energy into the agenda," Purvis, a member of the activist group Everglades Earth First!, said into her megaphone. "So as the clean energy transition team, we were asked to speak to you all tonight."

The party guests were less than impressed with Purvis's sense-of-humor. One guest allegedly wrestled the activists' banner out of their hands. During the melee, Purvis said, two of her associates were doused with beer.

"We did commit trespassing," Purvis said. "But is trespassing truly a crime as opposed to putting the entire planet in turmoil?"

Climate activists worldwide are raising the stakes, with many turning to civil disobedience to make their voices heard. Actions in recent months have ranged from chaining themselves to coal conveyor belts in Sydney, to forming port blockades in the Netherlands, to scaling smokestacks in the United Kingdom.

The rise in activism reflects growing frustration against the continued, and expanding, use of coal as a source of energy. The fuel, while affordable, is directly linked to climate change and air pollution.

"What I see is - in the last year - it just exploded and went from being a sizable amount of people, several thousands of very active youth all around the country, to just hundreds of thousands of young people," said Brianna Cayo Cotter, communications director for Energy Action Coalition, a network of North American youth climate activists. "I feel like the floodgates are about to open. We have the numbers. We have the skills. We have the passion."

In Europe, where some 50 new coal plants are being planned, Greenpeace is leading a continent-wide campaign [PDF] to halt eight upcoming projects in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom, plans are under way to build the country's first coal plant in 34 years. Activists have escalated their opposition to the proposed construction this year.

In the United States, a nationwide fight against 150 proposed new coal-fired power plants that began four years ago has put a serious dent in the coal industry's plans. Through the courts, government lobbying, and acts of civil disobedience, activists have helped cut in half the number of new coal power stations.

The movement achieved a major victory last week. In response to a Sierra Club lawsuit, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled that a proposed coal plant in Utah would need a plan for controlling its carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions before being granted a federal operating permit. The ruling essentially delays all such permits for the time being. "In the immediate future, no new coal plant will be moving forward," said Virginia Crame, a Sierra Club associate press secretary.

Meanwhile, the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) has staged campaigns targeting two of the largest funders of such coal projects: Bank of America and Citibank. Last weekend, RAN and Greenpeace organized more than 50 events across the country to protest the banks' financial support of the fossil fuel industry.

"A lot of people are jazzed up about it because global warming was such an important issue in the election on the state and federal level," said Mary Nicol, the Greenpeace student network coordinator. "The cleanest coal plant is the one that isn't built. The youth generation really understands that."

Environmental author Bill McKibben organized 1,400 simultaneous call-to-action events, known as Step It Up, in 2007. He has since founded 350, an organization that raises awareness of the 350 parts per million of CO₂ equivalent that many climate scientists consider the maximum level necessary for a stable climate.

Following a rally at the U.S. Capitol yesterday, McKibben said that plans for a fall 2008 global day of action would be announced at the climate conference in Poland next month. "Hopefully there will be rallies on every corner of the planet. We have organizers working on every continent except Antarctica," he said. "We need people to realize that coal is the dirtiest fuel on our planet."

McKibben also said he expects more acts of civil disobedience in the next year. "It'll happen. Keep your eyes open in D.C.," he said.

The Energy Action Coalition is expecting 10,000 participants at its second annual Powershift, a conference of climate workshops, lobbying, and protests in Washington in February. Similar "climate camps" have been held this past year in London, Hamburg, and Newcastle (Australia).

The large-scale campaigns rekindle memories of effective grassroots campaigns from the 1960s and ‘70s. But a saturation of information has made it more difficult now for organizers to attract attention, said Paul Wapner, director of the Global Environmental Politics Program at American University.

"There is a changing landscape in which activism in general, not just environmental, finds its expression," Wapner said. "With the Internet and all sorts of media, it's hard to figure out how one makes a difference and not just have their message get lost in the virtual world."

Regardless of whether the world is watching, more activists are risking arrest for the cause, and more support is coming their way.

In the U.K., six Greenpeace activists faced criminal charges this past summer for damaging a coal-fired power station on the Kent coast. With the support of NASA climatologist James Hansen, an Inuit leader, and other environmentalists, the defendants argued that they were acting on behalf of the world - specifically the Pacific island state of Tuvalu, the Arctic ice cap, and China's Yellow River, they said.

The jury ruled that their actions were indeed protecting property in England and across the globe. The activists were cleared of all charges.

In the United States, 11 protestors who formed a human barrier to a power plant construction site in Virginia in September faced 10 criminal charges and a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, until a plea bargain was reached last month. Hansen again offered his support.

"If this case had gone to trial, I would have requested permission to testify on behalf of these young people, who, for the sake of nature and humanity, had the courage to stand up against powerful ‘authority,'" Hansen said in a prepared statement [PDF].

Next month, Lynne Purvis will appear in court as well. She faces charges of trespassing, unlawful assembly, and resisting arrest following a protest earlier this year against the construction of a natural gas-fired power plant in the Everglades. She, too, requested that Hansen testify on her behalf, but he has yet to respond.

Stories of climate activists who have avoided punishment did not, however, influence Purvis, she said. "I honestly don't pay too much attention to that kind of stuff. My personal motivation is that whatever the consequence, it's better than the massive consequence that will be felt by the entire community and the entire planet."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Adoption of Climate Treaty by 2009 in Doubt

Ben Block — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0500

Despite new leadership in the United States promising to cap the country's greenhouse gas emissions, some environmental leaders say it is unlikely that an international climate treaty will pass in the next year.

During his campaign, U.S. president-elect Barack Obama supported a global cap-and-trade agreement for regulating his nation's carbon emissions. As a result, many international observers are hoping the United States will agree to binding emissions-reduction targets at the high-profile climate change negotiations scheduled for December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Such optimism may be unrealistic, however. The ongoing financial crisis, a potential withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and an increasingly unstable war in Afghanistan will likely dominate the White House's political agenda in 2009.

If the United States does not accept mandatory emissions-reduction targets at Copenhagen, a panel of environmental leaders and climate negotiators said last week that the climate conference will be much less meaningful.

"I doubt U.S. legislation will be ready by Copenhagen," said Elliot Diringer, vice president of international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a deputy assistant to former President Bill Clinton. "The odds of accomplishing comprehensive negotiations at Copenhagen are not very high. In fact, they're very low."

The outcome from Copenhagen will hinge in part on how quickly the U.S. Congress can pass a cap-and-trade bill, and on whether lawmakers would approve an international climate treaty before adopting domestic legislation. In 1997, when the Congress was last faced with a similar timing challenge, the U.S. Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol in a 95-0 vote before the international treaty was even finalized.

"We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past - first working out an international climate negotiation and then returning to U.S. legislation," said Robert Orr, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Planning. "It won't work."

Some of the panel's negotiators remain optimistic. Thomas Becker, chief climate negotiator for Denmark, said the financial aid package that the U.S. Congress swiftly passed in October is an indication that climate change legislation could be approved in the next year. "An aid package was passed overnight. It shows if the political will is there, you can do it," Becker said. "It's not impossible. It's a question of priority."

Quick passage of an international agreement is a challenging prospect because of the lawmaking rules of the U.S. Senate. To ratify a treaty, the legislation would require support from two-thirds of the Senate, or at least 67 votes. In comparison, only a majority in both chambers is necessary to pass a bill, and a bill requires just 60 votes to avoid a filibuster - a legislative tool that delays a vote by indefinitely extending the time for debate.

Congressional Democrats failed to pass an emissions cap-and-trade bill earlier this year. But the incoming Congress, which includes 20 more Democrats in the House of Representatives and 6-8 new Democrats in the Senate, is expected to face less partisan opposition in the next two years. In addition, current members of Congress have recently suggested more willingness to address climate change.

Some Congressmen, however, are already attempting to control expectations. Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, suggested last week that a cap-and-trade bill may not be ready until 2010. "The reality is, it may take more than the first year to get it all done," he said, according to an Associated Press report.

Aside from capping emissions, the Obama administration is expected to act quickly on a variety of other significant climate-related measures.

Obama has suggested he would grant the state of California permission to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles under the U.S. Clean Air Act, which the Bush administration has opposed since December. The reversal would allow California, and the 16 states that have followed its lead, to cut vehicle emissions 30 percent between 2009 and 2016.

The next administration will also decide whether new coal-fired power plants will be required to control their greenhouse gas emissions in order to receive a federal operating permit. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appeals board ruled last week that a proposed Utah power plant cannot be constructed until a regional EPA office decides how its emissions will be regulated; the gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act, according to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, the board said.

But Obama's intentions remain vague on many environmental fronts. Diplomats and environmentalists are urging the President-elect to attend next month's climate negotiations in Poznań, Poland, to clearly demonstrate his support for a new international agreement, even though he would only act as an observer. The conference is expected to result in a draft text of the treaty.

"We hope the administration of President-[elect] Obama will come to Poznań," said Janus Zaleski, the Polish deputy minister of environment, at last week's panel. "This will send a message to the world that the U.S. is intent in participating on an international stage."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Energy Agency Predicts High Prices in Future

Ben Block — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0500

The world can expect energy prices to continue their generally upward spiral in the years ahead if global energy policies remain the same, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported this week.

Rapid economic development in China and India, coupled with relatively consistent energy use in industrialized nations, will likely strain the world's ability to meet a projected rise in energy demand of some 1.6 percent a year until 2030, the agency predicted Wednesday in its annual World Energy Outlook report [PDF].

The IEA significantly increased its projections of future oil costs in this year's report due to the changing outlook for demand and production costs. It now expects crude oil to average $100 per barrel over the next two decades and more than $200 per barrel in 2030, in nominal terms. Last year's forecast estimated that a 2030 barrel would amount to only $108.

"One thing is certain," said Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA's executive director, in a prepared statement. "While market imbalances will feed volatility, the era of cheap oil is over."

Oil and natural gas resources are expected to supply the world for more than 40 years at current consumption rates. But the report expressed concern that rising world energy demands will outpace production.

"There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil-supply crunch in that timeframe," the report said. "The gap now evident between what is currently being built and what will be needed to keep pace with demand is set to widen sharply after 2010."

The price of meeting the world's energy demands is estimated at $26.3 trillion through 2030-an average of more than $1 trillion a year, the IEA said.

In addition to higher prices, most new oil fields are offshore or smaller than in years past, making oil extraction more difficult than ever. "Oil resources might be plentiful, but there can be no guarantee that they will be exploited quickly enough to meet the level of demand," the report said.

Demand for oil is predicted to rise from the current 85 million barrels per day to 106 million barrels per day in 2030, the report said. Due to this year's high oil prices, the predictions are 10 million barrels per day less than what was projected last year. Still, this represents an increase of 1 percent per year.

Natural gas demand is expected to grow even faster, at a rate of 1.8 percent per year. And coal demand would advance 2 percent per year on average, according to the report.

China and India are expected to account for more than half of the projected additional energy demand, and their power sectors would consume 80 percent of the additional coal. Overall, countries that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, a grouping of 30 industrialized economies, are estimated to represent 87 percent of the increased energy demand.

The result of this energy boom would be a steady rise in energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The IEA said the emissions increase expected under this scenario would result in a 6-degree Celsius rise in the average global temperature by the end of the 21st century. This would likely devastate many species and coastal communities worldwide.

The report also notes that renewable energy will likely surpass natural gas to become the second-largest source of electricity behind coal sometime after 2010.

These predictions, however, are based on a business-as-usual approach to energy use. If the international community enacts "profound shifts" in energy policies, namely through an international climate change agreement, the world's unsustainable energy path may be avoided, the report said.

The IEA estimates that $4.1 trillion in additional energy-efficiency investments is needed between 2010 and 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 parts per million (ppm) of carbon-dioxide (CO₂) equivalent. To reduce concentrations to a lower 450 ppm, $2.4 trillion more would be needed to pay for low- or zero-carbon power plants, and $2.7 trillion for more energy-efficient equipment.

Some climate researchers, including James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, have stated that the atmosphere needs to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 350 ppm in order to avoid "irreversible catastrophic effects" [PDF]. The atmosphere currently contains an estimated 385 ppm of CO₂ equivalent.

Representatives from the renewable energy industry have criticized the IEA report for underestimating clean energy's future potential. The IEA projected that renewable energy, excluding hydropower, could supply 4 percent of total power generation in 2030.

"We regret that the IEA still does not fully realize the actual dynamics and economics of renewable energy," said Stefan Gsänger, secretary general of the World Wind Energy Association, in a statement. "The new World Energy Outlook may, as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, mislead policy makers to make poor decisions by not putting enough focus on renewable energy and thus slowing down the renewable energy deployment rates."

The Energy Watch Group, a German-based international network of scientists, released a report [PDF] earlier this week that predicted renewable energy could supply between 17 and 30 percent of global electricity and heat demands by 2030 if investments increased significantly.

The IEA report also calls for energy efficiency and renewable energy investments to address the current global financial crisis. Several organizations, including the Worldwatch Institute, have called for similar "Global Green New Deals," just days before leaders from the world's 20 largest economies meet in Washington, D.C., this weekend.

"We cannot let the financial and economic crisis delay the policy action that is urgently needed to ensure secure energy supplies and to curtail rising emissions of greenhouse gases," the IEA's Tanaka said. "We must usher in a global energy revolution by improving energy efficiency and increasing the deployment of low-carbon energy."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

OPINION: Building a Green Economy

Gary Gardner and Michael Renner — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:06:18 -0500

When leaders of the 20 largest economies gather in Washington this week, a centerpiece of their deliberations should be a Global Green Deal that capitalizes on the current economic crisis to build economically and environmentally sustainable economies.

The perfect storm of today's economic, environmental, and social ravages requires a robust, multi-pronged response. Indeed, the challenge for global political leadership, including U.S. President-elect Obama, is not merely to kickstart the global economy, but to do so in a way that creates jobs and stabilizes climate, increases food output using less water and pesticides, and generates prosperity with greater equality of incomes. Successful political leaders will be those skilled at identifying synergies among today's hydra-headed problems and using them to craft powerful global coalitions from such constituencies as business, labor, and community organizations.

This broad approach will require a conceptual blueprint evocative of America's 1930s New Deal - but more audacious in scope and vision. The United Nations Environment Programme has recently called for a transformation of the global economy so that it works for the broad majority of humankind, within boundaries set by the planet's rate of resource renewal and waste-absorption capacity. This historic moment calls for not merely repairs to our hyper-productive, yet ailing, economy, but for a new approach suited to the realities of a heavily populated and environmentally stressed world - a Global Green Deal that shifts the focus from growth to development, and that is geared less to providing consumerist superfluities than to ensuring that nobody's true needs go unmet.

A Global Green Deal would have several strategic objectives:

Transition to a renewable energy economy.

Make renewable energy sources the dominant feature of the world's energy system, and systematically phase out reliance on fossil fuels. Wind and solar technologies are not just more environmentally benign than oil, coal, and nuclear power, but also more jobs-intensive. Alternative forms of energy already provide employment to more than 2 million people worldwide, and continued rapid growth will likely multiply these numbers in coming years.

Launch an efficiency revolution.

Doing more with less is one of the surest paths to wealth creation, and environmentalists have a great many ideas to raise energy and materials efficiency. Indeed, some European analysts have asserted that a tenfold increase in resource productivity is possible. Transport, housing, industry, and utilities are ripe with opportunities for huge efficiency gains. A "dematerialization" of economic activity requires far less mining and logging, and thus permits a sharp reduction in their environmental impacts.

Invest in green infrastructure.

Revolutionizing the electrical grid, creating transportation systems that are less reliant on automobiles and embrace rail and mass transit, and encouraging settlement structures that are compact, not sprawling, will stimulate economic activity, create millions of jobs, and free us of unnecessarily high levels of energy and materials use.

Make materials circulate.

Analyst Walter Stahel of the Product Life Institute has pointed out that the front end of an economy-extractive activities such as mining, logging, oil drilling, and fishing-tends to use less labor and create more pollution than manufacturing and maintenance activities. A circular economy emphasizes durability, repairability, recycling, and remanufacturing, squeezing more value out of the resource base and generating greater employment. Companies will thrive on helping their customers derive the most functionality and service out of a product, rather than merely seeking to maximize sales.

Work for a fairer distribution of wealth within and across borders.

According to the International Labour Organization, two-thirds of countries for which data are available underwent an increase in income inequality in 1990-2005 between the top 10 and bottom 10 percent of wage earners. Management - worker pay disparities rose to new heights. CEOs at the S&P 500 leading U.S. firms averaged $10.5 million in 2007, 344 times the pay of the average American worker. (And the top 50 U.S. hedge- and private-equity fund managers averaged $588 million each, some 19,000 times as much as the average U.S. worker.) Just three decades ago, CEO pay averaged only 30 to 40 times the pay of the average worker.

Translating these goals into reality will require smart regulations, tax shifts, subsidy reforms, mandates, incentives, and an ecologically-inspired industrial policy. A powerful first step is for governments to ensure that prices "tell the ecological truth" - ending the free ride that fossil fuels have enjoyed vis-à-vis renewables and ensuring that the air and water pollution, health impacts, and climate destabilization inherent in burning oil, natural gas, and coal are fully reflected in the price of energy.

Carbon taxes and similar measures accomplish this goal. Governments can use the resulting revenues to lighten the tax burden falling on labor in the form of payroll taxes. Such an ecological tax shift, which has been carried out on a limited basis in Europe, would encourage job creation. Other measures might include tax credits for companies that reduce their energy and material intensity or that step up their recycling, reuse, and remanufacturing activities - with double the tax break to those firms that use their savings to hire more employees.

A second idea is to use government procurement power to create large-scale markets for green technologies and employment generation, overcoming barrier-to-entry and chicken-and-egg problems that often bedevil innovative approaches. From the local to the national level, governments around the world spend trillions of dollars on public purchases every year. Intelligent use of procurement programs, coupled with expansive consumer product labeling and information campaigns, can play a critical role in ramping up economies of scale that render green products cost-competitive.

Public works programs, a third tool in government's toolbox, may be useful in both urban and rural settings, at least on a temporary basis. In rural areas, they could focus on reforestation and measures to halt soil erosion and adapt to climate change. Coupled with the promotion of organic agriculture as well as land reform, such programs can help create more resilient rural economies. In urban areas, they could focus on efforts to establish green belts, rehabilitate park and other green areas, modernize infrastructure, and build or expand pedestrian zones and biking lanes.

Fourth, retrofitting existing buildings will slash heating and cooling needs and would be a boon for the world's 111 million construction industry jobs. Germany's experience - government and private investments to weatherize apartments created or saved 140,000 jobs in a five-year span - is instructive. But a Green Deal would go far beyond housing for the world's middle class to combine greening measures with efforts to provide decent housing for those marooned in the world's teeming slums.

Strategic investments in greening the auto industry could also pay major dividends. Having focused on churning out gas-guzzling SUVs, some of the major manufacturers, like GM, are now struggling for survival. Governments could inject resources into the industry under the condition that R&D and commercialization efforts are unequivocally devoted to developing high-efficiency vehicles, while mandating that new models achieve fuel efficiency on an ambitious upward sliding scale. In recognition of the "built-in" consumption levels of existing inefficient fleets and the normally slow turnover rate, governments could pair such efforts with programs that buy up inefficient vehicles.

However, transportation policy needs to look beyond the auto industry and commit to a major revival of inter-urban rail and urban mass transit networks. Expanding and modernizing such systems and their infrastructure would offer an alternative to a car- and airplane-focused approach, stimulate innovation, reduce air pollution, and provide large numbers of well-paying manufacturing jobs.

Finally, the financial industry's rescue effort should be leveraged to turn the financial sector from a purveyor of the debt-driven consumer juggernaut into a force for green development. Such a re-orientation would seek to overcome the problem of high up-front costs for more efficient appliances and equipment by developing sustainable credit programs. In a greening economy, advantageous credit terms would be made available for weatherizing houses, installing solar panels, purchasing more durable and efficient goods, and other transactions that promise green dividends. So-called "location-efficient mortgages" are being offered in a small handful of U.S. cities. In essence, they offer preferential mortgages in areas that are well-connected to public transit and walkable. Used widely, they can counteract the sprawling settlement structures that are at the base of automobile dependency.

Where might the money come from?

The origins of the current crisis are found in the "overgrowth of financial assets relative to growth of real wealth," as University of Maryland professor Herman Daly has put it. Nonetheless, a global credit crunch threatens to starve even legitimate business and household needs and could trigger mass unemployment. This raises a key question: can capital for a global green rescue effort be mobilized?

Despite the global economic contraction, the answer may well be yes. The $700 billion committed to the U.S. financial bailout, plus additional large sums marshaled by other countries, suggests that governments can raise sizable sums of capital in emergency situations. Any number of large pools of capital might be tapped to fund a Green New Deal, if the right incentives were set in place. Here are a few ideas:

Military spending - The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports that world military spending in 2007 ran to a record $1.3 trillion - 45 percent higher in real terms than a decade earlier. The United States alone is spending about $700 billion per year on maintaining the Pentagon and conducting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a world with no major power conflicts, a substantial portion of these budgets would be better dedicated to a Global Green Deal.

Sovereign wealth funds - Oil rich nations and governments with large trade surpluses held $2-3 trillion dollars in wealth in 2008. Why not design incentives for government holders of such capital to invest in a Global Green Deal?

Tobin Tax - Trade in the world's currencies amounted to $3.7 trillion daily in 2007. Why not institute a Tobin tax - a levy named for its earliest proponent, economist James Tobin - as a way to raise Green Deal revenue? Even a minimal tax on foreign exchange transactions could bring in many billions of dollars, as well as dampen destabilizing currency speculation.

Fossil fuel subsidies - These are estimated at $150-$250 billion each year. Oil companies are highly profitable, and their product is toxic to climate stability. Why not remove government supports and pledge those funds to a Global Green Deal? And a tax on "windfall" oil profits, carbon taxes, or proceeds from the auction of carbon allowances could all serve the same dual purposes.

Insurance industry - The cost of weather-related natural disasters is on the rise, and is considered a "strategic threat" to the insurance industry. Between 1980 and 2004, the cost of such eventstotaled $1.4 trillion, of which $340 billion wereinsured. The industry may have a strong incentive to contribute to the climate stabilization piece of a Global Green Deal.

Treasury bonds - Bonds are commonly used for a variety of purposes, and could be dedicated to green investments. For instance, China's government has supported hundreds of energy conservation projects since 2006 in part by issuing treasury bonds.

Private Capital Flows - The energy industries alone invest several hundred billion dollars each year in fossil fuel-related projects; a share of that capital could be redirected to energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives.

Moving a Global Green Deal agenda is not the work of a single leader or even a small group of governments. Instead, it will require an overhaul of global governance at least as great as the one that occurred after World War II, when the United Nations and the Bretton Woods financial and economic institutions were founded to establish a new era of global stability. Today, a new international policy architecture is needed that includes issues such as climate change and other environmental issues that are central to the health of the global economy.

This includes a fresh direction for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to promote green and equitable development, and innovative arrangements for cooperative green technology development and sharing of best sustainability practices. In January 2009, a group of governments will establish the new International Renewable Energy Agency. IRENA is to become a key driver of the large-scale adoption of renewables around the world. Paired with an organization to promote international cooperation on energy efficiency, IRENA could become the core of Green Deal global governance.

This is a tall order in this severely challenged and constrained world, but the G20 meeting later this week is the ideal venue to begin this process. It is typically during times of crisis, not contentment, that humanity rises to new challenges. The present circumstances likely present a brief window of opportunity-a chance to shuffle the deck and create a more just and green civilization for a crowded world. Let the work begin.

Gary Gardner and Michael Renner are senior researchers with the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.

For Additional Information:

Worldwatch Institute's Green Jobs Web page.

Michael Renner, Sean Sweeney, and Jill Kubit, Green Jobs: Working for People and the Environment, Worldwatch Paper 177 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, October 2008).

Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 2008: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008).

United Nations Environment Programme, "Global Green New Deal - UNEP Green Economy Initiative," 22 October 2008.

Al Gore, "The Climate for Change," New York Times, 9 November 2008