Renewable energy is big, big, big: Josh just wrote about the world’s largest wind farm possibly going up in South Dakota (yahoo!), California could see the world’s largest solar power plant, and now Singapore is in the foray with landing the largest solar manufacturing facility the world’s ever seen.

A Norwegian company called Renewable Energy Corporation (REC) will build the complex, which will be completed in different stages to incorporate wafer, cell, and module production. REC already operates the world’s current largest solar plant in Norway, which produces about 650 megawatts of energy annually.

A solar manufacturing plant would be the first of its kind in Southeast Asia, and REC looked at 200 locations before settling on Singapore. A combination of tax incentives, grants, and a skilled workforce were some of the reasons REC liked it. Likewise, Singapore officials are thrilled about playing center stage in the world’s rush to clean technology. Ko Kheng Hwa of the Economic Development Board explained:

The project will be a ‘queen bee’ to attract a hive of solar activities to Singapore — big companies and young start-ups engaged in research and development, manufacturing and innovation, as well as the supplier ecosystem… This investment will be a tremendous boost to our national drive to develop the solar industry.

Once completed in 2010, the capacity of all the products the plant produces will generate up to 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of energy each year — that’s compared to the total global industry output of 2 GW in 2006. That large of an impact, combined with the 3,000 expected jobs, shines a new light on an emerging area of the world hungry for innovative and clean technology.

Accelerating Innovation
All Headline News
Manufacturing.net

Former President Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative has been all over the news lately, working with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and big business to move the ball forward with clean energy solutions to global warming. Whatever you think of the guy, it’s hard to deny that his partnerships are impressive and the results could be revolutionary.

Besides the agreement by utilities to invest in energy efficiency, and besides Florida Power & Light’s major new commitment to solar energy, the Clinton Global Initiative is also partnering with the Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUUCCCE) on efficiency efforts in China.

The China Lighting Conversion program will distribute 10 million free energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) to customers. CFLs use one-third the energy of traditional bulbs, but are still cost-prohibitive to many Chinese. According to JUUCCCE, the CFLs would save about 3.7 million tons of CO2 over 4 ½ years — enough to avoid having to build one typical U.S.-size coal plant. While I tell myself it’s encouraging to see the start of another clean energy commitment in China, I’m still disheartened by the multiple coal plants they’re building each week. But change has to start somewhere.

The other JUUCCCE program is the Energy Efficient Urban Design Tools for Mayors. This is an interactive, multimedia curriculum to train hundreds of Chinese mayors on technology and best practices that can make their cities more energy efficient. Mayors will learn about green building programs, for example, and will connect with vendors, service providers and financial advisors to help them implement what they learn. The key with this program will be rigorous follow-up and support to ensure that the information learned isn’t forgotten or lost in the bureaucracy one the mayor returns to the city.

The first phase will begin with the CFL program in April 2008, with the training for mayors to start in October of next year.

Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy

There was a questionable bit of progress this past Friday at the Vienna Climate Change Talks, where negotiators agreed on loose targets for cutting the emissions that cause global warming.

The 158 nations represented agreed that industrialized countries should cut global warming emissions by 25-40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. But nations like Canada, Japan, and Russia delayed the talks, arguing instead for a more "open approach" rather than setting hard and fast targets. In the end, negotiators agreed that the targets would be non-binding and that each nation’s efforts will be "determined by national circumstances and evolve over time."

Some participants saw it as a good sign that developed nations are more serious about cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while others warn that there’s a lot further to go. Red Constantino with Greenpeace International told the Associated Press that CO2 emissions need to be cut at least 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the disease, water shortage, and misery certain to afflict the developing world in a warmer climate.

Smaller nations pressured the developed ones for even deeper emissions cuts, to no avail. The UN’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, pointed out that if the world doesn’t act more quickly to slow climate change soon, these smaller nations will not be around to represent.

The United Nations-backed Vienna conference served as a starting point to guide the high-level international talks that begin in December in Bali. World leaders must begin crafting a new global agreement to put in place after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

While the U.S. did not ratify Kyoto, President Bush has committed to a series of climate change meetings. The first will be at the end of September in Washington, DC. Fifteen countries, the European Union, and United Nations officials are attending.

Associated Press, via CNN
Washington Post

Finance ministers from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) met last week in Australia to discuss how to meet the region’s energy needs and combat global warming. Key to this effort, they concluded, is to establish a framework to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

Market-based strategies, like a cap-and-trade policy used in Europe, were discussed. A cap-and-trade policy sets an overall limit on emissions, and then grants entities (factories, for example) permits that allow them to emit a particular amount of pollution. If they emit less than what is allowed, they can sell the surplus permits to a business that can not or will not meet their emissions requirements. This puts a price on emissions and creates an incentive to lower them. The value of global emissions-permit trading was over $30 billion in 2006, with 81 percent of that in the European Union.

APEC economies represent half of the world’s trade and include the world’s largest emitters, the U.S. and China. Neither country is bound by the Kyoto Protocol: China because it is a developing nation, and the U.S. because it didn’t ratify it. Another APEC member and large emitter, Australia, also didn’t ratify Kyoto but seems to making some progress with the announcement last week that it will start a national CO2 emissions trading system by 2012 and set a global warming emissions reduction target by next year.

China plans to cut energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years. However, Finance Minister Jin Renqing told APEC members that developed countries have the responsibility to help developing ones with the technology to achieve this. China is the world’s largest user and producer of coal, and just passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of CO2.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello was encouraged by China’s talk of using market mechanisms to cut pollution. He foresees his country playing a larger role as energy demand increases in the region but traditional supplies dwindle or are unusable because of their global warming impact. He assured China that its development will not be interrupted by energy scarcity and that Australia has “a lot to offer” it in terms of energy security.

Bloomberg News

A large, old, rich, and impressive group of businesses leaders has called for more action to slow global warming.

The Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of 160 U.S. companies with $4.5 trillion in annual revenues, more than 10 million employees, and makes up nearly one-third of the total value of the U.S. stock market. They lobby lawmakers on issues like jobs, healthcare, and trade. And last week they released a statement on one of the hottest of issues: global warming.

The Business Rountable’s Climate Change Statement acknowledges that although its members – such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, DuPont, and State Farm Insurance – have varying views on how exactly to address global warming, they do agree on some essential elements:

• More companies should make cutting emissions a priority and report publicly on their progress.
• Energy efficiency should be increased 25 percent.
• Any legislative or regulatory framework must stimulate private sector innovation and investment, as well as consumer awareness of new technologies.
• Increase research and development in new low-emissions technologies.
• Investment in climate science must continue at a high level “so that we can better understand and predict the magnitude and timing of future warming of the planet."
• Policies should be flexible enough to realign timelines with the development of new technologies, price spikes, or economic competitive imbalance.
• Consider different policy tools, including cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or energy standards.
• Any policy solution should be economy-wide and not impact a particular industry sector, technology, or geographic region.
• Maximize access to limited feedstock and energy supplies (for example, figure out carbon capture and sequestration so coal could be burned with less emissions).
• Adopt a global framework where all major emitting countries (specifically including China, Brazil, and India) are committed to reduction goals.

I’m a bit wary of parts of this list. It reminds me of the discussion I and other bloggers had with Exxon’s Vice President of External Affairs back in January, where it seemed like a perfect global warming solution was the enemy of a good global warming solution. I wonder, if a solution doesn’t include a commitment by China, India, and Brazil, is the U.S. still supposed to stand still and do nothing? It sounds like it…

The fact that so many businesses – to varying degrees of seriousness – are talking about global warming solutions is encouraging. The Sierra Club dismissed the Rountable’s statement as an atempt to appear sensitive while seeking to ensure that new regulations accomodate its members. Well, of course they want new regulations to accomodate them. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. But where can we find common ground? All of us should be open to ideas and reasonable compromise, but also make sure we’re not fiddling while the clock is ticking.

Business Roundtable

Reuters

We can stop the chest beating and flag waving, folks: China has passed the U.S. as the largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution.

Although some analysts didn’t expect China to overtake the U.S. for several years, the U.K. newspaper The Guardian reports that the Asian nation is now the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, a main contributor to global warming. However, the U.S. still remains the largest cumulative contributor to climate change, and our per capita CO2 emissions are four times that of China. Whew.

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which crunched the numbers, noted that China's soaring demand for coal (the equivalent of one coal plant is built each week) and surge in cement production (a very energy-intensive process) helped push it to the top. Although the statistics don’t include other sources of CO2 pollution, such as aviation, shipping, gas flaring and underground coal fires, a scientist from the Agency noted that those numbers would likely not affect China’s top spot.

The announcement may put more pressure on world leaders to work out a climate change agreement that includes China in the solution, as well as the U.S. Earlier this month, China unveiled a plan to cut energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010. But as the GDP grows, so too will its emissions. It has stressed that technology and costs are major barrier to energy efficiency, and wants international help moving towards a low-carbon economy.

It’s Getting Hot in Here
The Guardian
Technology Review

The Group of Eight (G8) summit brought the planet’s most powerful economies together last week to discuss issues like foreign policy, trade, and climate change. Buzz and speculation abounded before the meeting even began when the Bush Administration came out against host country Germany’s proposal to limit global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and to cut emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels. Instead, President Bush proposed his own plan for a series of meetings from which nations would agree on an emissions goal and then figure out how to achieve that goal on their own. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel was quoted as saying that her proposal was “non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.”

Well, turns out her proposal was quite negotiable. Rather than agreeing on concrete cuts, the G8 agreed to “seriously consider” cutting emissions 50 percent by 2050. They plan to develop a global framework on emissions by the end of 2008, and they affirmed the importance of developing nations to limit emissions.

What happened? Where’s the hard talk, the aggressive goals, the accountability? They’re just going to “seriously consider” it?

It seems that most world leaders were so happy that the United States was even in on the talks that the rest was second fiddle. British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the agreement "a major, major step forward." Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said it was "a very positive outcome." The Financial Times editorialized that "the G8 summit marks a turning point on tackling climate change." Even Chancellor Merkel said she was "very satisfied" with the meetings.

Others were less satisfied. Daniel Mittler, climate policy advisor of Greenpeace International said of the meetings, “The U.S. isolation in refusing to accept binding emission cuts has become blindingly obvious…” Likewise, Philip Clapp of the U.S. National Environmental Trust said that although Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Blair were portraying the agreement positively, "President Bush didn't give them an inch. The best they could get from him was a statement that their 50 percent-by-2050 emissions reduction proposal would be `seriously considered.` That's a pretty tiny landmark."

Did the G8 leaders fall to the lowest common denominator? Would it not have been better for them to move forward without the United States and commit to Merkel’s targets?

Financial Times
G-8 Summit 2007
Guardian
Taipei Times

The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have formally agreed to make their energy systems more efficient. A regional strategy will be implemented to better coordinate and exchange energy research, science, and technology. As one U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) official put it, the three countries are shifting towards a “North American perspective” as they explore how more synergy among their systems will help move us towards a cleaner, more efficient energy system and fight global warming.

This announcement seemed to come out of thin air to me. But apparently these talks stem from the North American Energy Work Group (NAEWG) that was formed in 2001 to improve transparency and regulatory compatibility, promote the development of resources and infrastructure, increase cooperation on efficiency standards, and address challenges on the demand side. The NAEWG began as a place to generate ideas, but has since evolved into developing plans for concrete results and the exchange of information and technology.

Energy efficiency was the top priority because of volatile natural gas and oil prices. Efficiency is also the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to cut global warming emissions. The three nations will work together to expand the U.S.’s Energy Star program and share best practices and technologies in areas like fuel efficiency and biofuels, which have also been identified as high priorities. The plans specifically intend to benefit businesses, making it easier for those that manufacture appliances, lighting products and electrical equipment to do business across the continent.

More details of a cohesive energy efficiency plan are expected in June, with talks on other energy areas to follow.

Cross posted at Maria Energia

United Press International
U.S. INFO
The White House

Today the fourth and final assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Mitigation of Climate Change,” will be released. More than 400 scientists and experts from 120 countries are in Bangkok, Thailand this week to finalize the report. The summary of Mitigation of Climate Change will be posted here; go here for a live webcast around 1PM local time. The full report will be released in September.

The report will lay out ways to cut global warming emissions and prevent the worst impacts without seriously hurting the global economy. In fact, it is expected to show that the cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of taking action now.

On Wednesday, the Taipei Times reported that talks were stalled by China, India, and Brazil, who insisted that industrialized nations take more responsibility for their pollution contribution. The stalemate took up other time meant for discussion on how to best tackle global warming. One European delegate reported:

"Progress is slow…Brazil, India and China are trying to put on the shoulders of industrialized nations the historic responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions in order to clear their own emissions [of blame] and to protect themselves in any discussion.”

The report will assess not only the long-term options available for the next 100 years, but a range of economic, technological, and institutional solutions and covering short and medium-term timelines up until 2030, explained Dr. R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Taipei Times
World Wildlife Fund

A hugely successful solar power project in India is providing clean, affordable electricity for 100,00 people and will be reproduced in other developing nations.

The $1.5 million United Nations-backed project aims to increase the number of homes using solar power in the Karnataka state of southern India. The number of homes using solar power has risen from 1,400 just four years ago to 18,000 today. Indian banks have also helped out by financing the solar systems, which can cost $300-$500 in an area where annual family income is $1,200. The UN’s involvement cut initial interest rate payments, but will be phased out over time.

A UN report to be released this week at the UN Commission for Sustainable Development shows that the solar power is cheaper and healthier than using the common kerosene lamp (no fumes to inhale or dim light to strain the eyes), and it doesn’t emit global warming pollution.

The solar systems allow for a few hours of power to run light bulbs, a radio, fan, or television. But that's enough to make a big difference, according to a UN statement:

“[The lighting] has been credited with better grades for schoolchildren, better productivity for cottage-based industries such as needlework artisans, and even better sales at fruit stands, where produce is no longer spoiled by fumes from kerosene lamps.”

Because of the project's success and its affordability, plans are in the works to expand the model to other developing nations. Efforts are underway in Tunisia, and future projects are planned for China, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Ghana, Morocco, and Algeria.

Reuters, via Environmental News Network
United Nations Environment Programm