NC Media Watch

Al Gore's Current Media cuts 80 green jobs

Russ Steele

Breitbart writes:

Current Media, a cable television company co-founded by former US vice president Al Gore, announced Wednesday that it is cutting 80 jobs as part of a reorganization.

The layoffs, which will leave Current with some 300 employees worldwide, come seven months after the San Francisco-based startup shelved plans for a 100-million-dollar initial public offering, citing market conditions.

In a statement on Wednesday, Current said it was canceling several television programs and shifting the focus of its programming away from short-form content to longer formats.

Wow! I guess there is no audience for green TV. Did you ever watch Current Media?  Really?

Economics trumps green jobs

Russ Steele

I have been hearing a lot chatter about going green and green job in Nevada County. I heard some of that chatter at the last ERC Board meeting.  Here is a reality check on green solar jobs from General Electric, who's CEO is a big Obama supporter and AGW cap and trade supporter.  

 General Electric Co. (GE) plans to shut down its only solar-panel manufacturing facility, as it found that prices for panels fell below production costs, Clean Technology Insight has learned…

The decision to shut down production was “mainly due to the challenges in the solar industry, including overcapacity levels that are twice demand and industry pricing that’s below the cost of producing the panels,” said Rocker…

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly known as the stimulus package, created a $2.3 billion program that gives manufacturers of renewable-energy components tax breaks. Several companies, including SolarWorld and Yingli, filed applications. Keeping manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has been high on the agenda of local and federal governments.

But for the solar industry, that may not be the smartest move, as far as job creation goes.

Its Time To Prepare For Another Dalton Minimum(edited)

Russ Steele

The A.P.P.L.E Center for Sustainability wants to create more reliance in our local quality of life. They want us to prepare for disruptions in our food supply by creating local food sources. The question is, are they willing to consider the possibility the real threat is not global warming caused by emissions of green house gases, but increased cooling due to another Grand Solar Minimum. Are they willing to consider that cooling will reduce our local food supply more than warming?  Last year Canada's grain production was reduced by 20% due to ongoing cooler wet weather. What if the cooling continues?  You can find the details at my latest post at The Dalton Minimum Returns. 

Californian wins seven Transformational Energy Research Projects

Russ Steele

The Department of Energy has announced funding for 37 ambitious transformational research projects - including some that could allow intermittent energy sources like wind and solar to provide a steady flow of power, or use bacteria to produce automotive fuel from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. California received seven of the 37 grants, totaling $20,851,750. More details here.

University of California, Riverside    $760,705

   Riverside, CA    Vehicle Technologies Alkaline polymer electrolyte fuel cell membranes that eliminate the use of expensive catalyst materials. Potential to drastically reduce fuel cell costs and enable their widespread application in building and automotive applications.

Stanford University    $4,992,651

    Stanford, CA    Building Efficiency Sensors, software, and controls to track and improve energy use patterns. Could lead to substantial reductions in building energy use by changing human behavior through timely information and usable controls.

Porifera Inc. (University of California Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) $1,077,992

    Hayward, CA    Carbon Capture Carbon nanotubes integrated into polymer membranes to increase the flux of CO2 capture membranes by two orders of magnitude. Could enable much less expensive carbon capture from coal plants.

  

More insight on a jobless recovery

Russ Steele

James Cooke Writing at the American Thinker has some insights into our jobless recovery:

Past clues to the present jobless recovery

Why is this nation headed towards a jobless recovery? Simple. It's because our economy is undergoing a structural change that will make it more difficult for unemployed Americans to find work.

This is not the first time in our history an economic transformation has impacted the way Americans earn their livelihood. Our current economic downturn resembles the Long Depression of the 1880s, when the U.S. economy switched from farming to a manufacturing.

According to Cooke we are switching from manufacturing to services, which are being automated to reduce the labor content. Where automation will not work these service are sent off shore. Cooke suggests that until we invent new services that cannot be automated or sent off shore unemployment is going to remain high. If Cooke is right this is going to be a long long recovery for the unemployed.

Going green or just green washing?

Russ Steele

What does going green mean? We learn about companies "going green" on the TV news, we hear special green segments on local radio stations, read special green section in newspapers, and we see going green magazine issues on every news stand. The recent Newsweek issue listing the top 500 green companies is a highly visible example.

To Newsweek's credit they tried to come up with some criteria to produce a green score for each of the 500 companies listed in the issue. This scoring criteria was based on three components:

An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT score which was based on greenhouse gas emissions, water use, solid waste disposed, and acid rain emissions.  

A GREEN POLICIES score which was based on the companies best-in-class environmental policies, programs and initiatives, as well as regulatory infractions, lawsuits and community impacts, and other indicators.

A REPUTATION score which was based on an opinion survey of corporate social responsibility professionals, academics and other environmental experts who subscribe to CorporateRegister.com.  Surveys were sent to 13,000 potential respondents of which 808 replied, rating companies as "leaders" or "laggards" in five key "green" areas: green performance, commitment, communications, track record and ambassadors.

Complete details on the scoring systems can be found here.

Thomas L. Friedman writing in Hot, Flat and Crowded quotes Peter Gleick, a climate expert at the Pacific Institute, about the need for standards to determine what “going green” really means. Gleick pointed out that without some green benchmarks anyone can claim to be “going green.” 

I wonder what criteria our local radio stations and newspapers use to determine what should be included in their “going green” segment and stories.  As Peter Gleick points out that society has yet to agree on what “going green” means. Without any benchmarks, anyone can claim to be green or going green.

This leads to wide spread green washing. Green washing is a term used to describe the practice of companies spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly.  It also applies to organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment. 

I suspect that KNCO’s Project Green is a form of green washing.  I think the same applies to the Union and their Sustainable Living newsletter. Both seem to be just a hodgepodge of items culled from the wire services, but it gives the appearance of doing something for the environment. Going Green has become the marketing hype of the decade.

Sustainable living — A hodgepodge of ideas?

Russ Steele

 This column appeared in The Union on 10 October, 2009. I have added the pictures and links below.

Do you understand what sustainable living is? I have been following the Union's Sustainable Living blog and the Sustainable Living with The Union Newsletter, but they are just a hodgepodge of ideas thrown together, which only leads to confusion about what sustainable living really is.

The Sept. 30 front-page story about the new APPLE Sustainability Center in Nevada City led to more confusion.

Seeking more clarity, I went on the Internet and researched the term “sustainable living.” I found there have been more than 70 attempts to define the terms and the concepts of sustainability.

Perhaps the most influential definition comes from the World Commission on Environment and Development, held by the United Nations in 1983: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Another definition of sustainable living suggests we must “synchronize our consumption of natural resources with the earth's production by only consuming natural resources at the same rate they are produced.”

According to the APPLE Center for Sustainable Living Web site (applecenter.org), they are in the process of working out sustainable living solutions for Nevada County, but offer no specific definition as to what sustainable living is, only some visionary goals for the center:

“A physical hub to assist the public, private and business sector in collectively reducing our planetary impact and improving a sound quality of life in our community as a whole. ...

“(It) will provide knowledge and tools for sustainable living ... build relationships that increase efficiency and effectiveness as our community proactively transitions to a local, sustainable economy.”

These are lofty goals, but I was still not sure what sustainable living is, so I visited the center and asked for some help. Accompanied by my friend George Rebane, we met Mali Dyck, the director, and eventually Reinette Senum, NC-APPLE member, who dropped in and joined in the discussion.

According to Reinette, beyond making the center economically “sustainable” the staff and volunteers is current focusing on promoting local agriculture sustainability. George and I were looking for something more concrete, perhaps some specific plans or programs.

The broader sustainability goals cited early in the discussion by Mali were admirable, but lacked substance. As our discussion progressed, Mali introduced the idea of resiliency as a sustainability goal for the community, for example how to survive a major social or economic disruption, such as six dollar-a-gallon gas.

Climate change skeptics have a psychological disorder!

Russ Steele

  Really! Last week at the American Psychological Association convention, a task force from the group issued its findings on the psychological obstacles hindering American action to combat climate change. Of course they have assumed that there is human caused climate change that can be fixed by just adjusting trouble some human activity. Anna's theme song.

Despite warnings from scientists and environmental experts that limiting the effects of climate change means humans need to make some severe changes now, people don't feel a sense of urgency.

The task force said numerous psychological barriers are to blame, including:

    •    Uncertainty – Research has shown that uncertainty over climate change reduces the frequency of "green" behavior.
   
    •    Mistrust – Evidence shows that most people don't believe the risk messages of scientists or government officials.
   
    •    Denial – A substantial minority of people believe climate change is not occurring or that human activity has little or nothing to do with it, according to various polls.
   
    •    Undervaluing Risks – A study of more than 3,000 people in 18 countries showed that many people believe environmental conditions will worsen in 25 years. While this may be true, this thinking could lead people to believe that changes can be made later.
   
    •    Lack of Control – People believe their actions would be too small to make a difference and choose to do nothing.
   
    •    Habit – Ingrained behaviors are extremely resistant to permanent change while others change slowly. Habit is the most important obstacle to pro-environment behavior, according to the report.

Support for Policies to Curb Warming Slips as Economy Takes Toll

Russ Steele

The title above is the headline in the press release for the latest Public Policy Institute of California Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. I will be doing some more detailed analysis on this survey this weekend. As we know sometimes it is not question, but is how the question is asked that counts.

Most Residents Still Favor Action on Climate Change but Partisan Split Widens

SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 29, 2009—Solid majorities of Californians favor state policies to curb global warming, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. But in a year that has seen both a worsening recession and state budget crisis, residents’ support for urgent action on climate change has slipped and a partisan divide on the issue has widened.

Most residents (66%) support the 2006 California law (AB 32) that requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Support has declined 7 points from July 2008 (73%) and 12 points from 2007 (78%). The decline is sharpest among Republicans (57% 2008, 43% today).

Clean Tech Venture Money Down 48%

Russ Steele

I have written numerous times on this blog about the dangers of basing Nevada County's economic recover on going green. Here is one example from Wired why going green can be a huge challenge. 

"Venture funds in the last year have really learned that the clean tech space is not like software," Fan said. "You can get a software company from zero to IPO with $50 million. That's one round [of financing] in green tech."

So venture firms are returning to their roots investing in small companies, Fan said, instead of making big bets on ethanol refineries and solar thermal plants.

In addition, it is highly unlikely that green venture capitalist will seek out Nevada County, it too far from home base on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park.  VC like to make unannounced visits. A trip to Nevada County is an all day affair, they prefer a quick jaunt down SR-101 and be back in Menlo Park for lunch or cocktails.