|
|
|
Creating better renewable energy investment funds via feed-in tariff legislation |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on February 25, 2009 @ 07:57:00 AM by Paul Meagher
Had to buy some registered retirement savings plan funds yesterday in order to bring down my net income and put me in a different tax bracket for this tax season. During the process, I talked to an investment advisor over the phone about my options and inquired as to whether there were any funds dedicated to renewal energy. He indicated that they were just coming out with a fund but they were probably too late in their offering. He said that with the price of oil so low now, that these funds are struggling. I didn't really have the time to pursue this line of questioning much further as my wife only had lunch time to finalize the purchase and was waiting with me in the bank to sign papers to purchase our mutual funds for the year.
In retrospect, it would have been nice to have had more time to look into their "renewal energy funds". Those of you reading this blog might want to inquire with your local bank what renewal energy investment funds they do offer before you purchase any investments for your retirement savings plan.
It could be argued that investment in renewal energy is only a bad investment when governments don't properly regulate the market for renewal energy. To make renewable energy investments attractive, one proven method is to apply a feed-in tariff like Gainsville is now doing. Feed-in tariffs are used extensively in Germany and helped Germany to create a leadership position in renewable energy. Feed-in tariffs involve offerring a long-term guaranteed rate of return for electricity generate from renewable energy that is significantly above the rate offerred for electricity generated from non-renewable energy sources. The cost of this tariff is born by all energy users in the legislated region and helps to stimulate the market for renewables. Another thing feed-in tariffs do is encourage investment in renewable energy funds in those regions that offer such tariffs because of the long-term guaranteed premium on renewal energy sold in those regions. Many investors load up their portfolio with renewable energy investments because they offer the promise of long-term solid performance. In my opinion, this is as it should be - the value of a renewable energy fund shouldn't be as tied to the price of oil as it currently is. The main policy tool to effect this decoupling is the feed-in tariff.
|
|
Permalink |
|
John McNeill on environmental issues |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on December 8, 2008 @ 07:54:00 AM by Paul Meagher
I've started reading John McNeill's best know work to date:
John McNeill. Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the 20th-Century World. New York: Norton, 2000.
This is an impressive book which I will probably need to acquire a copy of rather than borrowing from the library.
I was doing a bit of research into what Prof. McNeill has published lately. I came across this recent Georgetown University promotional interview in which Prof. McNeill addresses a few different environmental issues.
I hope that Mr. Obama finds a way to include Prof. McNeill's expertise into his decision making on the environment as I would regard him as a credible authority. Prof. McNeill's credentials includes, among other things, two Fulbright Awards, a Guggenheim fellowship, a MacArthur Genius Grant, and a fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
|
|
Permalink |
|
PLoS is gaining traction |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on December 6, 2008 @ 09:39:00 AM by Paul Meagher
Lately I'm seeing more and more articles referring me to the Public Library of Science website, otherwise known as PLoS. I decided to take a look and am impressed with this revolution in the making. I fully endorse it.
I've been seeing the deterioration of university library collections to the general public because of restrictively licensed eBooks and eJournals. At least in the days of paper bound books and articles I could walk into a university library and gain free access to cutting edge knowledge. Digital journal technology has been a regressive force for the most part until now.
PLoS has an interesting way of making money - it charges authors, on average, $2000 USD to publish an article in one of its journals. I think that it is a good use of public money (i.e., from academic grants) to cover the costs of having your article professionally promoted, hosted, and managed over time in an open-access format. It is not the obligation of researchers to line the pockets of the journal publishing industry by giving them their research and expertise for free and allowing the them to charge a hefty fee for access to that research and expertise (effectively taking it out of circulation to the general public). I'd probably go further and say it is unethical of publicly funded academics to be publishing in electronically-gated journals now that an open-access service like PLoS is a completely viable alternative.
|
|
Permalink |
|
Environment and energy policies |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on November 5, 2008 @ 10:17:00 AM by Paul Meagher
Barack Obama has convinced voters that electing him is the best way to establish hope for the future of the U.S. and the world. The Obama-Biden policies on Environment & Energy are a good starting point for accessing this claim.
|
|
Permalink |
|
Criteria for identifying green businesses |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on September 17, 2008 @ 08:00:00 AM by Paul Meagher
In the article Buyer Be Good, Sandra Odendahl uses the following criteria for determining whether a company is green:
- Green companies strive to be green through and through. In addition to offering environmentally preferable products or services, they also understand how their business supply chain and operations affect the environment, and are making efforts to minimize their impacts;
- Green companies allocate resources to improving their environmental performance;
- Green companies have objectives and targets for improving their overall environmental performance, not just in the marketing area; and
- Green companies are not afraid to report on their environmental performance. They don’t just publish glossy brochures filled with smiling children and nature scenes.
|
|
Permalink |
|
New Belgium Brewing |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on September 5, 2008 @ 08:00:00 AM by Paul Meagher
On the New Belgium Brewing company website is the following image:
I recommend visiting their website and reading a bit about their process. What particularly interests me about New Belgium Brewing is that brewing 400,000 barrels of beer a year requires a massive amount of energy and is a water intensive process. To claim a green footprint in this business, and at their scale, you need to be doing alot of things right which they appear to be doing (e.g., goal of being entirely wind-powered, good waste water treatment practices, energy efficient, high job satisfaction, etc...). New Belgium Brewing is a good case study for operating a green business.
|
|
Permalink |
|
How to make money and save the world |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on September 4, 2008 @ 08:00:00 AM by Paul Meagher
I've read a few chapters into the book
Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the World (2008)
by Gary Hirshberg.
It is easy to read and offers an interesting business perspective based on the author's experience running a successful green business, Stonyfield (makers of a line of Organic yogurt and milk products), as well as case studies on the business practices of other successful green businesses (e.g., Patagonia, New Belgium Brewing, etc...).
One way Stonyfield "saved the environment" was by doing an Eco Audit of their business to 1) identify and quantify the eco impacts of their business, and 2) to track them over time. This lead to a number of initiatives:
- Invest in self-generated renewable energy (solar panels)
- Invest in converting waste to biofuel
-
- Invest in co-generation; capturing and reusing heat from their manufacturing process and from waste
- Numerous energy-efficiency investments
- Offsetted when they couldn't avoid fossil-fuel usage (e.g., product distribution)
- Worked to get toxic chemicals out their products, packaging, and marketing materials
- Continuous work on minimizing packaging and selecting the right packing materials. Stonyfield's Eco Audit pointed to packaging as the second largest fossil-fuel comsuming component of their business.
One of the main points that Hirshfield makes is that these eco-investments were also excellent business investments. For example, increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption of fossil fuels have reduced Stonyfields operating costs substantially and allows it to be competitive and profitable. Their workers (and workers in other green businesss case studies) experience alot of job-satisfaction when they work in an enviroment where eco-friendliness is actively practiced. And last but not least, consumers are buying tons of their products (second in Yogurt sales in the US) in part because it is an organic product that comes in eco-friendly packaging from an eco-friendly business.
|
|
Permalink |
|
Bill Clinton's policies for a Green Economy |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on August 20, 2008 @ 07:31:00 PM by Paul Meagher
Bill Clinton recently gave a talk at the National Clean Energy Summit. David Roberts reported on 10 major initiatives Bill Clinton recommends in order to shift to a green economy:
- Pass a price on carbon via a cap-and-trade system. (The alternative is a carbon tax -- "I tried that once. It didn't work for me.")
- Tax credits to purchasers or producers of clean energy -- the investment tax credit for wind and production tax credit for solar -- must have a 6-10 year time frame (instead of one and two year extensions we). Clinton grew quite animated about this point.
- Modernize the electrical grid, both its efficiency and its carrying capacity -- "taxpayers ought to split the cost with utilities."
- Utility decoupling ought to be mandatory federal policy rather than left to the states.
- Accelerate replacement of incandescent lights with florescent, and raise appliance efficiency standards.
- Fund research and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration -- "we can't afford not to try to do this."
- Accelerate the move away from corn ethanol to more sustainable biofuels (this was the night's first applause line) via a "differential tax incentive." Clinton said corn ethanol plants can "easily be modified" to produce cellulosic ethanol, a claim many biofuel opponents would contest.
- Implement a national program to shut down all urban landfills and use the organic material for waste heat or fertilizer.
- Accelerate the shift hybrid electric vehicles and modernize rail networks. (Here Clinton mentioned that the 1992 Congress gave him money to research high-speed rail, but that the conservative 1994 Congress viewed rail as "closet communism" and shut the program down.)
- Demonstrate to rest of the world that "this is not an affectation for rich countries," that it's just as big an opportunity for developing countries. This is how we can restore our world reputation.
|
|
Permalink |
|
Al Gore wants carbon-free electricity by 2018 |
[Leadership] |
|
Posted on July 18, 2008 @ 07:50:00 PM by Paul Meagher
The blogosphere is abuzz with commentary on Al Gore's recent pitch to congress to generate all US electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years. I welcome the boldness of this suggestion. This contrasts with the recent G-8 summit goal of cutting emissions by half by 2050. Most observers are critical of this goal because 1) there are no nearer term goals and 2) this will likely be too-little-too-late if it ever materializes.
For Gore, the urgency of achieving this goal is because it doesn't just tackle greenhouse gas emissions, but also addresses two other major US problems: boosting the US economy (by becoming a leader in green economy) and avoiding current and future of oil-based wars:
I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers
and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.
You can read the original text of Gore's speech or an annotated version.
|
|
Permalink |
|
|
