JATAN
Today, it may not directly affect the physical and socioeconomic environment of the U.S. as much as it does some developing countries, but deforestation anywhere deserves some attention, and not just from tree huggers. It accounts for about one fifth of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide, after all, and a study from the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) this month finds that deforestation in one Indonesian province generates more carbon emissions in a year than the Netherlands do.

The study discovers that turning Riau province’s forests and peat swamps into pulpwood and palm oil plantations not only drives local tigers and elephants closer to extinction, but also contributes significantly to climate change. Over the past 25 years, around 65% of the Indonesian island’s tropical forests and peatland have been cleared away to make way for industries. Today, forest covers only 27% of Riau. Forest loss, land degradation, peat decomposition and forest fires have contributed to approximately 0.22 gigatons of average annual CO2 since 1990. Australia emits less in a year than Riau does. These astronomical figures can be attributed partly to the global surge in biofuel demand.

In the wake of the UN climate change conference in Bali this past December, when negotiators urged developed countries to pay Indonesia to cut down fewer trees, and Indonesian officials vowed to create incentives for reducing deforestation, hope remains. Although it’s still too early to tell how committed Indonesian leadership will be to this issue, it’s nevertheless been a little more exciting than the U.S.’s winding road to finally accepting binding emissions cuts—provided that China and India do the same.

While the problem of overall deforestation isn’t as overlooked as the UK’s Independent claimed it was last May, it still hasn’t achieved the mainstream attention from policymakers that fossil fuels—and alternatives to fossil fuels—have. Whether this discrepancy exists due to a lack of profit in protecting forests, developing countries’ dependence on the logging industry, or other reasons, we can only surmise.

Seed banks represent tremendous value for agriculture: in the event of a natural or manmade disaster of epic proportions, we won’t be scratching around in the dirt for native seeds that might have survived. They’re also a form of insurance against the day we genetically modify food plants past usefulness. We’ll have the healthy, viable seeds neatly labelled and stacked on nice clean shelves. Seed banks are so necessary, in fact, to a sense of a country’s well-being, that people have even died protecting them: during a famine in Russia years ago, two scientists locked themselves in and died of starvation rather than surrender the building to the people, who, in their own hunger, would have eaten the seeds.

Photo: Mari Tefre/Svalbard Global Seed Vault

The brand new Global Seed Vault in Svalbard is officially the largest one yet, and, many hope, the most secure. Some facilities have been vulnerable to natural disasters like flooding, or have been destroyed in the course of war, as in Iraq most recently. The idea is that no one is very likely to start a war in the snowiest, coldest, most forbidding region of Norway, and since the facility is built like a bunker deep in the ice–yet still high above sea level–it will be safe from any conceivable catastrophe. Countries that can afford it are gathering their own stock and shipping it; countries that can’t are receiving funding from organizations like the Gates Foundation. Ideally, the ancient grains from every region will be stored here, perfectly intact, waiting for their diverse genetic material to be called into action.

A major concern about seedbanks is that they encourage consolidation not only of resources, but of methods. We live in a world in which diversity in large-scale agriculture is no longer the norm. Monocultures and giant corporations are now the name of the game. The Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food notes that “more than 7000 plant species have historically been used in human diets; however, less than 150 species are today used in modern agriculture. Only 12 plant species today represent the major vegetable source in today’s menu.”

The Global Seed Vault’s site strives to remain neutral, recognizing the debate over monoculture but urging only “the sensible management of genetic resources.” Andy Revkin of the New York Times puts the matter in more provocative terms, asking, “in a world tending toward monoculture, how much of this intergovernmental work helps sustain farming diversity, as opposed to museum-style genetic diversity? Do farmers matter?”

Photo:The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture i Nigeria (IITA)

Revkin is asking the wrong question here, as I don’t think farmers, as such, have mattered for a long time. They’ve been getting sidelined by powerful corporate interests for at least the last half century, especially in America but certainly not constrained here. He should instead have asked, “in a world tending toward monoculture, how can intergovernmental work support rather than hinder farming diversity?” Governments sending seeds to be stored in a vault doesn’t really affect whether or not a small farmer can get an ancient strain of wheat to plant. He probably can’t because a corporation has purchased all the small companies that used to sell the farmer wheat and has taken all but one or two genetic strains off the market (the ones to which they hold the patents).

But what do I think of the seed bank system? At least it preserves raw, unmodified material so that if we can reverse trends back towards agricultural diversity, it will be there for the using. It costs nothing for the countries that “deposit” to “withdraw” from the seed bank; this genetic material is held in trust for the world. (Though hopefully a withdrawal will never be necessary, as the Norwegian vault is only a respository for duplicates of seeds already in storage in their native countries.) I don’t see the seed bank system as an excuse to stop trying to achieve diversity in our agricultural system, or to delve more deeply into genetic modification. Even if it’s rather a Cold War mentality, preparing for the worst isn’t a bad idea.

I think we should view the opening of the largest seed bank yet not as a deterrent to diversity but as a reminder of its value.

Our main areas of focus here at Getsolar are photovoltaics and solar hot water heating systems–those technologies that we, as individuals, can incorporate into our daily lives to lower our energy bills and lessen our dependence on carbon-intensive energy sources like coal. But on occassion, advancements in other technologies merit our attention. The February 22 inauguration of Nevada Solar One is just such a case.

The new plant derives electricity by concentrating the sun’s rays (hence the name “concentrated solar power,” or CSP) to boil water, the steam from which drives a turbine. A project of Acciona, a Spanish engergy company, Nevada Solar One is touted as the world’s largest CSP plant to be built in 17 years. And at 64 megawatts, it is said to have enough umpf to power 17,000 homes.

As many observers note, however, the future of CSP in the U.S. largely depends on state law requiring utilities to generate a certain portion of their electricity from renewable sources–the so-called renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Equally, if not more, important is whether Congress will vote to extend tax credits for commercial investments in solar energy. (The bill also has do-or-die implications for the wind-energy industry, and, if passed, would likewise double the tax incentive for individuals buying solar-power systems from $2,000 to $4,000).

Thus far, Senate Republicans have blocked the legislation twice, with President Bush threatening veto because the new incentives would be funded by taking tax breaks away from gas and oil producers. This should hardly be surprising, given that many southern states, whose economies don’t stand to benefit from renewable energy credits, are largely represented by Republicans. Nor, for that matter, should it surprise us that oil companies are opposed to losing billions of dollars in tax incentives. This is the politics, after all, of a large, regionally diverse country that values the merits of federalism and individual state power.

What should surprise us, however, is if Washington makes the mistake of neglecting the renewable-energy sector–especially on the cusp of a recession. President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), Rhone Resch, recently cited a new study showing that, if Congress fails to extend tax credits for renewables, upwards of 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in U.S. investment could be lost in just one year. While these numbers are by no means astronomical (Exxon’s profits alone topped $40 billion last year, this in a $13-TRILLION economy), they are certainly not trivial. Strong bi-partisan support for a $180 billion stimulus package shows that Washington won’t shy away from fiscal measures in their efforts lessen the impact of an economic downturn. In the light of the phenomenal rates of growth in renewables in recent years, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that extending incentives to this sector would help ensure that this growth continues.

While extending such credits would theoretically raise energy prices by making oil companies pass the burden of lost tax breaks onto consumers, the increases are likely to be minimal: oil is a commodity that’s traded in immense volumes on an international market, and Congress’s current proposal would only nullify tax breaks for the Big 5 (Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell and BP), while freezing incnetives for smaller oil companies at 6 percent. I, for one, would welcome additional increases in the price of gasoline, provided that they be accompanied by reductions in the price of renewable alternatives. Recent polls suggest I may not be alone in this regard.

Sometimes, I don’t really have answers. This case where the neighbors of a solar user were forced to cut down their trees is one of those times.

This story brings up all kinds of troublesome issues, and challenges a lot of assumptions about green living and being environmentally responsible. Most, or at least many, environmentalists would say that they are in general in favor of conserving natural features – such as trees, lakes, etc. They would also say that they support the spread of renewable resources like solar, to counter the dehabiliating effect of fossil fuels upon the planet. And yet in this case both desires cannot be satisfied.

This isn’t a case that requires King Solomon, but it’s tough to decide who exactly is in the right. Retroactive criminality – such as the trees you planted suddenly becoming illegal – is always an uncomfortable concept. But if people want to install solar, then every effort should be made to encourage their investment, which might include features of neighboring homes that are non-essential and, in this case, economically detrimental. The choice can’t be framed as simply or divisively as “trees v. panels,” but this is a situation that offers many challenging variables.

I’m not prepared to pick a side in this case, but I’d love to hear your thoughts. Was the state right to order the trees cut down?

It’s finally happened: Castro has hung up his hat. Okay, handed it to his brother, and he will absolutely still put it on from time to time…but a regime change is in the air. Even if Raul Castro is blessed with unusually good health and long life, he’s still 76 years old, and Cuba can’t look ahead to another half century of same old, same old.

Photo: CCL Peter Ashton

Very little about Cuba, or Castro’s reign, is black and white. The intersection of energy resources and environmentalism is no exception. Cuba has little in the way of natural energy reserves. U.S. sanctions, while ineffective in some ways–last year, Cuba saw a reported 7% growth in the economy–have certainly made it difficult for Cuba to trade for oil, all but shoving the country into the welcoming arms of Hugo Chávez, who lords over the incredibly rich oil reserves of Venezuela. Only two months ago was Chávez in Cuba, there for the inauguration of a Soviet-built refinery on the island that is slated to process over 60,000 gallons of crude oil per day. This also means that if Cuba were to be successful in searching for oil reserves off the coast, there’s now a domestic refinery option.

Oil reserves off the coast…this brings me to the next point: environmentalism. Part of it was just excellent spin doctoring, part of it was real necessity, part of it may have been genuine concern for the future of the planet, but Fidel Castro has been a strong supporter of renewable energy (though not of biofuel!) for some time, and a proponent of organic farming and conservation. Solar panels abound on the island; for many, solar is the first energy they’ve had. Organic gardens in Havana supply state-run–er, I guess that goes without saying–hospitals and schools with fresh herbs and produce. Coffee farms are managed with minimal pesticides, or none at all. And “ecotourism” is looking to be the country’s biggest cash cow, especially if those of us with U.S. passports are ever able to hop down there. It’s a deeply impoverished country and needs all the cash it can get; to the question, “But at what price?”, Castro has thus far said, “Not at the cost of my country.”

How will a new leader answer this question? If a new leader is one with whom the U.S. is willing to negotiate, and suddenly oil from more places than Brazil and Venzuela are open for the purchasing, will Cuba maintain focus on clean energy? Will Castro’s intense opposition to biofuel fade before fields of sugarcane intended as biomass? Will offshore drilling turn pristine reefs into a conservationist’s worst nightmare? There’s probably another ten of fifteen years we’ll need to wait to get these questions answered; Fidel, though he’s stepped down, is certainly not going anywhere just yet, and while hermano Raul is his own man and likely to change things up a bit, he’s still a Castro. I just wonder if we won’t all be a bit nostalgic when the change happens. Many things are caught inside the time capsule of Cuba, and not all of them are bad.

Following on Eric’s blurb on Qatar’s growing investment in photovoltaics, I thought I’d share this picture I took during my recent travels to the Middle East. These solar water heaters are found on nearly every rooftop around Jerusalem. I saw a good number of PV panel installations as well, especially atop commercial centers and government buildings, but neglected to snap a shot as it was raining quite heavily that day.

Given Israel’s location and high rates of insolation, and relatively limited domestic sources of energy, it’s not surpising to see so many individuals making use of solar power. And given the ever-precarious political situation, it’s not surprising that the Israeli government has been taking steps to reduce its reliance on imported oil by increasing funding to solar technologies. Whether the Negev will ever produce to the recently hyped 1-gigawatt of power remains to be seen. What does seem clear, however, is the start to a mildly ironic trend: in a region that sits on 2/3 of global oil reserves, solar energy is making noteworthy headway.

(P.S.: For info on a nascent proposal to convert all of Israel’s cars to electric motors, check out President Ehud Olmert’s recent speech.)

For those of you planning on traveling around Boston this Presidents’ Day weekend, here’s a heads-up: you may easily brush shoulders with some of the world’s most preeminent scientists and thinkers. They’ll be rushing about the Hynes Convention Center and its adjacent buildings, making their way to the various symposia, workshops, and lectures offered by this year’s meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society and the publisher of Science magazine. (http://www.sciencemag.org) The theme of the world’s largest general science conference for 2008 is “Science and Technology From a Global Perspective,” in order to reflect the global nature of scientific debate today. Last year’s theme was “Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being,” and the summit took place in San Francisco.

This year’s meeting, which runs from February 14-18, features guests ranging from the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, to Nicholas Negroponte, the founder of the One Laptop Per Child program. The conference typically attracts roughly 10,000 attendees and 1,000 journalists each year, with over 60 countries represented, estimates Wired magazine. Various exhibits and lectures will be open to the public, and not only families, researchers, and science aficionados, but also recruiters will drop in on this summit. It’s exciting to see that symposia with titles such as “Food and Fuel: Biofuels, Development, and a Sustainable Bioeconomy” and “Global Warming Heats Up: How the Media Covers Climate Change” have been placed on equal footing with events devoted to fighting global obesity and to the diffusion of nanotechnology.

However, the question now isn’t whether or not scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is important—a sizable majority do agree on its existence and on the magnitude of its effects, after all—but rather, what effect will this meeting have on those who will shape international policy to come? What new discoveries does it promise, and will it deliver? Will it be simply a congregation of scientific minds as they discuss their research and lecture to one another? Or will these big ideas also affect big changes? A search on the San Francisco Chronicle website of last year’s conference revealed little, only an article or two describing lectures the scientists gave to the interested public. Education is of course paramount, but I’m interested in seeing something that could bring more than just those 1,000 journalists back, year after year, in search of the next big breakthrough.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

New York Times; MSNBC

Since the conservation movement really got going in the 1960s, one of the most pressing issues has been that of control of the Colorado River watershed. The regions that depend on this watershed are many and varied, and cross several state lines. Due to the natural aridity of much of the Southwest, the Colorado has always represented tremendous value for the miners, ranchers, and urban planners who have built lives anywhere near it. The building of dams has been hotly contentious, as has the piping away of fresh water to places like Las Vegas. Yet the water supply has always seemed nigh inexhaustible. A new study of a lake in the watershed finally has the warning bell tolling loudly enough for everyone to hear.

Lake Mead, one of the two major reservoirs of the Colorado River watershed (the other is Lake Powell), is the major water source for both Phoenix and Las Vegas. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, based out of UC San Diego, has just released a report that indicated Lake Mead might be completely dry by 2021. Yep. That’s less than fifteen years from now.

CCL: William Klos

The researchers are citing anthropogenic climate change, regional abuse of the water supply, and a natural cycle of drought as the primary reasons for this drastic change. And this change is not just something that will affect a national resource–it will affect most of the population in the Southwest. And it doesn’t stop there. Looking at the bigger picture,

The researchers “note that a number of other studies in recent years have estimated that climate change will lead to reductions in runoff to the Colorado River system. Those analyses consistently forecast reductions of between 10 and 30 percent over the next 30 to 50 years, which could affect the water supply of between 12 and 36 million people.” [Scripps]

While the Scripps Institution stresses the importance of changing water consumption and use habits immediately, the researchers reserve judgment on whether or not usage pattern changes will be enough to stop Lake Mead from going dry. We are seeing, again and again, that our daily habits, our larger choices in managing our environment, and the natural patterns of climate change are intertwined and deeply related. If the Southwest loses one of its major water supplies, and the Colorado River one of its only real buffers from the human populations that so depend on it, we’ll see a lot more than behavioral change. We’ll be seeing a national catastrophe.

Fox Business reports that Prince Andrew is lending his name and presence to the launch of a solar energy system in California. The system installation is for the firm British Telecommunications. While his role as Special Representative for International Trade and Investment for the United Kingdom obviously leaves such appearances well within his job description and area of expertise, this nonetheless feels a lot like a celebrity endorsement for solar. And that’s fantastic.

It took Al Gore’s documentary to demonstrate the reality of climate change to much of America. His endorsement of fighting global warming, his adoption of it as a “cause,” changed a lot of the public perceptions surrounding the contentious rhetoric, and will be a significant part of why whoever takes over in the White House in 2009 will have a wide base of popular support for carbon reforms. Awareness of the Toyota Prius, as well, was assisted invaluably by the number of Hollywood celebrities who drove it. Now, to even my surprise, the Prius is outselling the Ford Explorer.

Solar is going to succeed on its own merits. No amount of publicity or advertising matters if the product itself is weak, and in that regard the solar industry has little to worry about; the quality and economy of solar power will ensure its adoption. But every piece of positive publicity helps, and any time companies like BT associate a well-known person with solar, one more step is taken on a very promising road.

Martin LaMonica at CNET’s Green Tech Blog ran an interesting piece on Friday, highlighting the absence of solar from Congress’s recent and much-debated economic stimulus package. But there’s really not much of a story here.

Solar is going to continue to be as contentious in Washington as other green issues for some time to come. The case for shifting away from a carbon economy has not yet convinced a great deal of American voters and legislators, and while they need to be convinced as quickly as possible there is going to be a need for compromise until then. On some points, such as cooperation with other nations in reducing emissions, and broad and substantial legislation to advance clean energy, there are clearly times to take a stand. But a high-profile stimulus package is neither the time nor the place, for any number of reasons.

One can argue the merits of whether a stimulus is necessary to help with a possible recession, but once the decision is made then the obvious imperative is for quick, effective action. That’s why checks will be arriving in only a few months in American households. Holding up the whole process for the lobbying of one industry – solar, in this case – would have been silly, and aided no one involved; supporters of solar’s inclusion would have been accused of stalling and selfishness, and the accompanying acrimony would have at the worst prevented a bill from being passed and at best thrown a bitter taste into a refreshing case of bi-partisan cooperation on the Hill.

Moreover, solar wasn’t the only party or interest excluded, nor was anyone expecting that the stimulus package would be the opportunity for all outstanding questions of economic policy to be settled. And nothing in the statement quoted for CNET’s article, from the Solar Energy Industries Association, expresses disappointment with the stimulus package specifically.

Unquestionably, the federal tax credit for solar must be renewed past 2008. But there is quite a lot of time to do that, and making a fight of it during the frenzy around the stimulus package might have been the worst conceivable time to do so. Contrary to CNET, I see no reason to view this as a defeat for solar.