November 3, 2008

"Follow the Green Brick Road" to Recovery?

Back on September 9, John Podesta's Center for American Progress released a study called Green Recovery, which promised two million new jobs from a $100 billion investment over two years. That day was also my birthday, so my attention was elsewhere. But nearly two months later in the wake of the financial meltdown, taking a second look at the report seems worthwhile, since now more than ever, a road to recovery for the United States and the world could very well be paved with green bricks. Conversely, it could also be a story of "low carbon prosperity" that sounds good, but ends up dead on arrival. The landscape has changed greatly since September 9. To use one last Wizard of Oz allusion - we are no longer in Kansas. Credit has dried up, global stock markets are in chaos, unemployment is spiking and consumer confidence is at record lows. As a result, does this now put the basic assumptions in the Podesta report in question? ($50 billion in tax credits, or half of the proposed $100 billion, for example, would seem a non-starter today). More importantly, even if the assumptions are unchanged, will the perceived cost of carbon policy at a time of economic instability suck the political will out of Capitol Hill, a place over the last three decades renowned for monumental cowardice in the face of monumental challenge. The stakes couldn't be higher, especially on the eve of an Obama presidency and Podesta heading the transition team. It would be great for the Center to produce an update to their report, taking these new factors into account. But until that happens, some prominent voices in October continued to build a case for this notion of a Green Recovery as a message/vision worth rallying around.  

Deutsche Bank, in its Investing in Climate Change 2009: Necessity and Opportunity in Turbulent Times, argued that the economic turmoil of the past month sets the stage for a one-time windfall:

We believe that, when combined with energy security, climate change policies will play a role in government efforts to stimulate their economies in 2009. Governments now have an historic opportunity to define long-term regulatory frameworks to encourage private investment in climate change initiatives. Additional opportunity exists for governments to boost their economies by funding infrastructure projects that will serve to foster energy independence and climate-proof their economies.

As a result, the debate around climate change has started to shift away from issues of cost and risk toward the question of how to capitalize on investment strategies that span a vast array of asset classes and industries.

Similarly, Goldman Sachs GS Sustain weighed in, citing a "warming investment climate" for sustainability, and an increasingly clear rationale for corporations to view low carbon action as a key business driver: 

Going forward, we expect the importance of climate-change performance to rise further and extend to an increasing number of sectors where the direct costs and benefits of companies’ different strategies may currently be less quantifiable but will, in our view, become increasingly important aspects of their ability to achieve and sustain industry leadership. 

Finally, economist Nicholas Stern has also provided a valuable perspective, noting that the right policies will offer a globally sustainable model for growth:

Let us grow out of this recession in a way that both reduces risks for our planet and sparks off a wave of new investment which will create a more secure, cleaner and more attractive economy for all of us. And in so doing, we shall demonstrate for all, particularly the developing world, that low-carbon growth is not only possible, but that it can also be a productive and efficient route to overcome world poverty.

It all sounds good. Public works programs, a la the New Deal, to make smart upgrades to the outdated grid and public transportation infrastructure, jobs that can't be exported coming from installation of solar panels and other clean energy solutions, cost curves from McKinsey that provide a roadmap of affordable carbon abatement measures including significant savings from energy efficiency, etc.  

But there will also be those that counter with a picture of inefficacy and a price tag that's too high, as we caught a glimpse of during Senate infighting in June over possible climate policy. Already, new messaging against aggressive climate policy is emerging. A recent letter to a Florida paper offered a glimpse of the opposing camp and its messaging, criticizing Gov. Crist's recent recommendations on climate, and warning of a "carbon police state". 

What's so exciting right now from a positioning and messaging point of view, is that the global economic crisis provides the first real opportunity for the clean energy industry to fundamentally pivot away from the politically and emotionally charged topics of "global warming" and "green" (and their polarizing, Al Gore/treehugger affiliation, which turns off a large part of the population) and own outright the promise of growth, recovery and prosperity, issues that everyone can relate to and support.  

The rubber is about to hit the road. The next three to six months offer a chance in the United States for elected officials to be heroes or hucksters. It is no secret that the oil and coal industries have outspent the renewables industry by tens of millions of dollars in the past two years in campaign contributions, so it won't be surprising to see some of our politicians fold. What's needed is a concerted effort on the part of the broader clean energy community - the Apollo Alliance, Cleantech and Green Business for Obama, Environmental Entrepreneurs, Change to Win, USCAP, Evangelical Climate Initiative, ClimateWorks Foundation, US Conference of Mayors, etc - to unite and make sure that the message that is delivered in Washington, D.C. and state capitals is this - climate change notwithstanding, the clean energy economy is a legitimate and feasible road to recovery. It appears that two additional stimulus packages are set to emerge from DC in the near term, one lame duck and one post inauguration. The industry achieved its biggest win so far in the $700 billion stimulus package, with an 8-year extension of the investment tax credit for solar, and it is possible clean energy will benefit from the two upcoming packages as well. But that is just a start, and our thinking needs to be more expansive and inclusive. It's the Recovery, stupid.

Comments (0) | Permalink
October 14, 2008

A Cleantech World for Poor is Possible (and Profitable)

The distributed and micro nature of cleantech means that it has an important role to play in helping the world's poor, especially in the areas of energy and water. In fact, cleantech in the developing world is increasingly seen as an economic opportunity for local communities (for example, solar water heaters in China). Perhaps just as important, the introduction of clean energy into the developing world, if successful, could have a hugely ameliorating effect on global climate change as those economies expand, people are pulled out of poverty and consumption increases. Solutions for the poor are often lower tech, but higher inspiration. Take the group of six African students who came up with a method of using the sun's energy to take humidity from the air and turn it into potable water. Or the compost toilet that came out of the Interprofessional Projects Program (IPRO) series appropriately called Developing Extremely Affordable Products for the Rural Poor of the World. More recently, the Sahara Forest Project was announced, with the goal of using concentrated solar power and seawater greenhouses to produce clean energy and water in Africa on a much greater scale. Other great examples that are also equally inspiring have been built around small scale wind, solar cooking, micro hydro, PV-powered water distillation and pumping, biogas, rainwater harvesting, etc  My closest association with the growing momentum in this area is my work with clean-emission cookstove company Envirofit, which is trying to end indoor air pollution, a silent and largely unknown killer in the developing world that results from the burning of dirty cooking and heating fuel in cramped quarters. Envirofit, although a non-profit, is taking a business approach to the problem. Traditionally, the failed top-down philanthropic model was built on spending money to buy clean-burning stoves, giving them away and hoping they didn't break. Instead, Envirofit is letting the market lead from the ground up - its building a sales, distribution, financing and service infrastructure around the stoves so that locals, starting in India, can actually own the process, as opposed to simply being recipients of charity. This market approach is gaining ground across the donor and NGO world, and initial results from the Envirofit approach in India are very promising. Dr. E.F. Schumacher was one of the earliest proponents of what he called "intermediate technology", a belief that there are cheaper, more appropriate ways of addressing problems in the developing world other than the capital- and resource-intensive ways of the West. Although motivated by different reasons, more and more for-profit companies are working to improve the development of clean water and energy technology in poor countries. Some companies, like Coke and others in the food and beverage industry, are simply involved because they have no choice (they only remain in business if there is clean water). At the international level, the World Bank, after signing on to support the Clean Energy for Development Investment Framework, announced it would raise a $5 billion cleantech fund for the developing world earlier this year, and Japan has also committed to $10 billion for its Cool Earth Partnership. Some influential private funding organizations are working increasingly in this area as well, including the Acumen Fund, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Light up the World Foundation and Shell Foundation. If you are looking to make an individual contribution, consider INVEST, Green Microfinance, Practical Action, Global Green and Global Giving.

Ultimately its going to have to be a combination of private sector innovation and capital, and public sector support to bring the might of cleantech to the poor in places that lack basic infrastructure and are often remotely situated. Of course, poverty is not the exclusive domain of the developing world. Action is also being taken in the United States and other richer countries to bring clean energy to the poor. 

Here's a list of 12 technologies and initiatives with potential to help solve the clean energy and water conundrum for the world's poor. Additional programs focused on the use of solar to alleviate poverty and health issues can be found here and here. 

LifeStraw - Lighting Africa - Watel - Envirofit - Sahara Forest Project - Warm Winter Challenge -  World Clean Energy Awards - Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development - Grameen Shakti - Architecture for Humanity - SELCO - REN21 

This post is my contribution to Blog Action Day.

Comments (0) | Permalink
October 7, 2008

60,000 Green Jobs Projected for NW

A newly released report says Washington and Oregon states can assume leadership in five cleantech sectors with the potential to generate up to 63,000 direct jobs by 2025 (up from 11,000 today), and outlines what it says is a plan to be the first US region to achieve 75% of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2025. By the report's own admission, there is nothing particularly new about the five presumptive areas of strength (PV manufacturing, wind power development, green building design, smart grid and bioenergy), and the 75% figure is somewhat misleading, given that the two states already get 62% of their electricity from clean hydro and renewable sources (The hydro, of course, has nothing to do with anything we've done, but merely the luck of living in a place with lots of mountains and rivers). That said, the report is a very helpful first step for a region that has struggled mightily to get its act together and to find a clear identity and focus amid the clean technology boom in the Bay Area and Boston. It points to a number of signals that point to the potential for future leadership - home to big PV plants from REC and Solar World, home to big wind developments, etc. The report, produced by Climate Solutions and CleanEdge, also proposes a top-level series of 10 actions for the Northwest to achieve its role as a cleantech leader. The top 10 list: 1. put a price on carbon, 2. increase Washington RPS to 25 percent by 2025, 3. implement low carbon fuel standards, 4. pass aggressive green building codes, 5. foster regional cooperation, 6. ensure public funding for clean technology via PERS investments and through targeted clean-tech funds, 7. implement effective tax credits for renewables development, 8. deploy cleantech workforce development programs, 9. establish government procurement policies for cleantech products and services and 10. build out regional smart grids and 21st century transmission backbone. 

Oh, is that all? Not to mention that how we achieve all of that in 17 years is still unclear. But it is clear from the report that the proof of Northwest leadership is building in drips rather than torrents. It points out several major weaknesses, including some that make the top 10 actions look easy:

  • Absence of a leading university technology incubator like MIT or Stanford
  • Technology investment climate that pales in comparison to Silicon Valley and Boston
  • Small size of public clean-energy support funds compared to other state leaders
  • Aging electric utility grid system challenged to carry increasing distributed and variable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar
  • Small regional market served by cheap hydro, compared to densely populated markets with high-power prices in other cleantech centers

Another issue that is particularly troubling to me: the lack of synergy between Oregon and Washington. They are working very much in silos, despite the best efforts of Climate Solutions. The one bright spot is the Western Climate Initiative, so that's hopefully something to build on. And the absence so far of any attempt by Oregon and

Washington's Fortune 500 companies to be advocates for the region and to work together to bring their influence to bare.

Nevertheless, the report is rather optimistic in its job creation forecasts, with an acclerated forecast of 63,000. The less aggressive target is 40,000. Nearly two thirds of the growth is expected to come from the PV and bioenergy sectors.

Disclosure: I was one of the 50+ people interviewed for the report and I'm a member of the Climate Solutions Business Leaders for Climate Action group. I've written about many of these obstacles and opportunities here in the past.

Comments (0) | Permalink
September 24, 2008

Suppliers See Red over Green Building

I've spent a lot of time in building technology since starting work with concrete innovator Hycrete. This sector screams business opportunity. In part because of what US groups like Healthy Building Network are developing with the Pharos Project and Bill McDonough and his crew are doing with Cradle to Cradle. Other groups are also in the space, such as UK-based The Green Standard. These groups, although taking somewhat different approaches, have one goal in mind — to ensure that building materials are safe for humans and the environment, which often means more energy and water efficient as well. Pharos is essentially a graded scale identifying what range of sustainability and health various products fall within, while C2C is a more transitional approach that gets companies that are manufacturing to buy in to a "back to the soil" design methodology and work to gradually improve their process. The Green Standard is very focused on International Organization for Standardization (ISO) life cycle assessment. Either way, this new type of thinking and the standards that are sure to emerge will force suppliers to the building industry to come up with alternative solutions or go the way of the dodo. Perhaps an even bigger red flag for suppliers - leading architecture and design firms are working independently and with the various emerging standards to come up with their own list of supplies that are deemed bad for human health and the environment. The number of young companies in this space is growing quickly, you might say as quickly as a mushroom (one of the most fun companies is Ecovative Design, who just won the 2008 PICNIC Green Challenge for their mushroom-derived Greensulate product). A resource for other materials that has received some attention is an online database and book called Transmaterial. All of these initiatives will surely further ruffle the feathers of the Vinyl Industry and other powerful lobbies in the building sector. But if the incumbent suppliers buck the trend, they will be missing a huge business opportunity for the creation of new markets for more sustainable supplies. Just think what will be needed to replace PVC? It's not about ideology, it's about business opportunity.

Comments (0) | Permalink
August 6, 2008

NW RE Events Picking Up

Nice to see Seattle and Portland starting to attract and create some quality cleantech, clean energy events. It starts next week with Oregon's Green Advantage: Opportunities for Entrepreneurs, which will showcase local companies such as PV Powered, Plas2Fuel, Greenlite Motors, Powermand, Shorepower and UV Cleaning (as well as some leading NW multinationals and investors). In addition, there is ACORE's Renewable Energy Finance Forum (REFF) - West, scheduled for Seattle in October, which promises to be a highlight of the year and already has a solid lineup of speakers. Also, because of the work being done in the region around algal biodiesel by such firms at Bionavitas and Bioalgene, the 2008 Algal Biomass Summit will also be taking place in Seattle in October. Stay tuned as well for the kick-off of the Pacific Northwest chapter of the Renewable Energy Business Network (REBN) in September (you can click on Chapters to find the PNW link and sign up for updates).

Comments (0) | Permalink
July 18, 2008

Wireless Comes Clean

Cleantech is fun because it touches so much, although technically in the case of wireless there is no touching going on (alas). Wireless is particularly effective when applied to more efficient use of energy, water and other resources. I first took notice of the growing wireless/cleantech ecosystem when I learned that Vulcan Capital (my neighbor in Seattle) had invested in a company called Ember. Other companies in the space, many of which use wireless for various sensing applications that monitor and automate demand of  energy and water use for utilities, buildings and facilities, have attracted investment including SynapSense, Eka Systems, Accuwater and Powercast to name but a few. Of course major players such as Honeywell and Siemens (through spin-off EnOcean) are also heavily involved. A newcomer called On-Ramp Wireless is claiming orders of magnitude greater capacity and range when compared to other systems based on the Zigbee standard (a full list of companies involved with Zigbee can be seen here). Wayne Manges, a leading wireless advocate with the Oak Ridge National Lab, put the whole "green wireless" opportunity into perspective in an interview with Green Mountain Engineering. Mr. Manges noted: "The 'holy grail,' of course, is low-cost ubiquitous sensors. With improvements in process visibility users get better energy efficiency, materials use, quality control, inventory tracking and reduced waste." He predicted that wireless sensing will spark "a tidal wave of change" to industry and culture. Pacific Northwest National Labs is also doing work in this area, focused more on managing HVAC systems wirelessly, something my client Optimum Energy is working on as well. The Department of Energy (DOE) has largely been responsible for creating the industry for wireless in energy management, in part through its guaranteed loan program. One of the keys, according to Manges and others, to really blowing out the wireless cleantech segment is promulgating standards that take away the hesitation of end-users, many of whom are wary of investing without protocols that can talk to each other. ISA 100 intends to do that, and expects its first standard to come out in December 2008. Suffice it to say that cleantech is more than just the sexy, shiny (and high risk) renewable energy gadgetry. It is also the more mundane, but equally if not more impactful, world of wireless controls and automation and their importance in delivering on the promise of the smart grid. Even so, there is also cutting edge work being done to achieve Nikola Tesla's dream of wireless transmission of energy, including experimentation with magnetic resonance by Marin Soljacic at MIT, which might eventually have even bigger ramifications. This will continue to be a fun space to watch.

Comments (0) | Permalink
June 30, 2008

Green Marketing Snapshot

Ad Age recently published a special section on agencies involved in green marketing. Of course I am happy to see the Weber Shandwick Cleantech and Planet 2050 practices included, but I have to say that the list seems pretty arbitrary. There are a number of agencies out there that are not mentioned. Just to name a few that I know about: Blue Practice, Antenna Group, egg, Clean Agency and Earth Advertising. The other thing that struck me about the Ad Age list is how different the approaches are from one firm to another, from setting up different practice groups to trying to infuse values of sustainability throughout an organization. Granted, I've only worked in the world of agencies for 3 years, but given what I've seen throughout the industry so far I would have to say that infusing anything into organizations that are typically based on individual P&Ls seems quite a challenge unless is is bottom up. As they used to say in China where the central government is always at odds with regional governments, "On top is policy, below is counter-policy". A good resource for marketing and communications issues around sustainability is Greenbiz.

Comments (0) | Permalink
May 30, 2008

(Another) call to action for the NW

Here's an op-ed that I penned with Dan Rosen that appeared in the Tacoma News Tribune. If you haven't joined Business Leaders for Climate Solutions, you should. 

For a long time, "green" in Washington state has stood for Granny Smith and pine trees. With the Legislature's passage last session of the Climate Action and Green Jobs bill, the state took a big step in creating a future based on the new green – a vibrant economy based on clean technology (cleantech), the green consumer and green exports.

Gov. Chris Gregoire deserves congratulations for requesting and championing the bill. But we all still have more work to do. The window for establishing leadership in the cleantech economy is fast closing. The opportunity to have a strong voice in shaping federal climate policy is closing fast, too. According to the Cleantech Network, while the total amount of venture capital invested in clean technology grew explosively in the last year, the Northwest accounted for just four percent of the total. The Northwest's share was $261 million out of a national total of $6.4 billion, barely placing it in the top 10 regions. And that's not just Washington state, but Oregon and British Columbia as well.

 

Discount the investment in the local biodiesel company Imperium Renewables in 2007, and Washington easily trails the Vancouver, B.C., cleantech cluster and is arguably far behind Oregon, where business leadership has articulated a much clearer vision for establishing an industrial base around the theme of sustainability. California and the Northeast have taken significant leads, and places like Austin, Texas, and Chicago are mobilizing civic leadership around this sector.

As members of Business Leaders for Climate Solutions, we are proud to have supported the Climate Actions and Green Jobs bill. We were joined by 32 other state business leaders, representing cleantech entrepreneurs, investors, energy consultants, service providers or simply business people passionate about sustainability.

But if the Evergreen State is going to emerge from the ongoing cleantech boom with a significant piece of the green that is being created, the broader business community must rapidly and definitively elevate its game.This is not a niche issue; the challenge of using energy more efficiently and developing sustainable products and services affects every sector of the economy and will provide both opportunities for leadership and tremendous risks for the laggards. A recent survey found 61 percent of business executives around the world expect climate change solutions to boost company profits. That's why the major corporations that provide Washington's economic backbone and their executive leadership need to bring their vitally important participation to the table: It's of great economic interest to all of us.

Washington state arguably has several characteristics that will help us as we strive for a piece of the green economy. Our assets include: unrivaled branding as a center of "green" ideas; a consumer base that is highly sophisticated and demands truly sustainable products and services; and strong trade and economic ties with China and the Far East, which is fast emerging as a leading consumer of cleantech products and services. We applaud Sen. Maria Cantwell's efforts to make Seattle the center for the dialogue with

China about these issues.We also have a vibrant green building-and-design industry, which is one of the key pillars of the green economy. And we have the potential to become a power in providing integrated design solutions that will be needed to reduce energy usage worldwide, including "green software" and smart-grid applications.

Along with these strengths, we need to find sustainable and verifiable ways to leverage our vast forestry and agricultural resources as sources of renewable fuels and carbon sinks as regional and international markets take root.

But key pieces are missing. Specifically, for Washington to compete and lead in the cleantech economy, the business community must demand and achieve three things:

  • Legislation next year that commits Olympia to put a price on carbon through a regional cap-and-trade system, along with complementary policies that promote clean energy, sustainable development, transportation and land use, energy efficiency and training for the green-collar workforce;

  • Pressure on the federal government for strong climate policy that achieves reductions in global warming pollution that is science-based and beneficial to the economy;

 • And we need a business community that is focused on and organized around the vision of making the region an international leader in the coming cleantech transformation.

 We have a chance to truly be Evergreen. Now let's seize it.

Comments (1) | Permalink
May 6, 2008

The Discoloration of Green

Last year, I said that a time would come when the term "green" would fall into disuse. I'm now wondering if that time is nearer than I originally thought. I'm already sensing some fatigue from friends in the media. At the consumer level it's also more pronounced (depending on the day, search for "green fatigue" on a leading search engine bring back 500,000 to over 1 million results). Ironically, at the recently concluded Fortune Brainstorm: Green event, Andrew Shapiro of Green Order said that it felt as if 2008 would be the "apex of green". Which of course begs the question: How steep is the downward slope in 2009? Ted Nordhaus (who coincidentally was my childhood neighbor growing up in the southeast quadrant of Washington, DC, back when we both had hair) and his cohort Michael Shellenberger, in 2004 shook up the establishment with their paper called "Death of Environmentalism". They succeeded in pounding the final nail in that coffin. Now green's utility is in question and it is even being challenged by another color - "blue". Sustainability advocate Adam Werbach is now selling blue as the next step beyond green, arguing that blue is more accessible because it, in effect, means having your cake and eating it too (I've tried that, by the way, and I keep biting my hand by mistake). But really, green or blue, aren't we just creating another arbitrary label that will also fade away with time? Aren't we just setting ourselves up for "blue fatigue", when the next Adam Werbach comes along and pronounces the blue movement dead, and argues that its time for chartreuse to have a turn? Not to mention the fact that people in the developing world (I spent 16 consecutive years in China from 1987-2003 so I have some credibility) have just started the Long March to consumerism and couldn't really give a damn about green or blue, unless its related to the color of their new car or the tile in their newly renovated, air-conditioned kitchen.  

I moved into technology because public capital markets (and human activity more generally) are driven by short-term interest and unsustainable growth. Facing a powerful system backed by powerful inertia, it was my conclusion that fundamental change to our behavior around consumption/growth is highly unlikely to happen (to the degree or within the timeframe needed) to address the ecological problems we face. That POV was largely informed by my time in China, where I watched stock markets open, bans on advertising lifted, private cars allowed back on the roads and consumerism return with a vengeance. I witnessed China's boom and how it raised a lot of people out of poverty. The problem is that we can't raise the remaining 1 billion Chinese out of poverty without totally screwing ourselves and the ecology. And China is just the start - Brazil, India and the rest of the developing world are going through the same transformation. Far be it for me to deny others the chance to live lives of comfort. But it is highly naïve to assume that individual Chinese or Indians or Brazilians will have the foresight to look beyond their drive to material comfort and make decisions on how they live based on a moral responsibility for the health of the planet. The West didn't. It just won't happen (no offense Bill McKibben, whose conclusion for our generation - that more is not better - ignores the fact that its mainly people who know wealth who have room to think about less). Only when people are so afraid of the ramifications of climate change or toxic sludge seeping out of their water taps will they be motivated to change behavior (as recent events in Juneau underscored). But of course, by then it will be too late.  

So my bet for overcoming the challenges is technology, broadly defined. The way I see it, technology is the layer buffering natural resources from consumer and corporate behavior. It allows consumers to continue to behave much as they do and it allows natural resources to get a reprieve from that behavior. The more scaleable the technology, the bigger the reprieve and the better our chances. What Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has done with appliance standards in China is a perfect example of this. "Technology buffering" is not a panacea, but at least there is an opportunity to insert new clean technologies into existing products and systems and have a significant and accelerated impact. That's what gets me moving in the morning. (Several new books, The Cleantech Revolution, The Plot to Save the Planet and Apollo's Fire address this movement). 

What interests me from the Fortune event and others that I've attended over the past two years is a shift in the conversation. Many of the people I talk to say green/blue doesn't really matter. I agree. What matters is that "industrial restructuring" takes place. Whether the CEO of Stonyfield Farm ("we don't even use green to describe our customers, but 'quality' or 'educated'"), the chairman of SC Johnson ("we need to move the conversation from going green to transforming industry"), Vinod Khosla ("people's view of green is obsolete, its about mainstream business"), or builder Steve Glenn ("within 15 years green building goes away as a category"), the focus is more and more on creating a technological buffer to reshape the way we supply and demand.  

So let's focus on the technology that is going to get rid of the only color that deserves our attention - the black of oil and coal.

Comments (2) | Permalink
April 23, 2008

Notes from a Green Brainstorm

Hundreds of leaders from business, policy and NGOs in the same room for two days, naturally some interesting things will emerge. Below is a quick sketch of trends and comments from the just wrapped Fortune Brainstorm Green that I thought of particular note:

  • The media "needs to get off cars and on to buildings" - Autodesk executive chairman Carol Bartz on the fact that the issue of buildings sucking energy, material and water is still not getting the attention it deserves. The numbers back her up. Conversely, it was noted by others in the green building space like Hycrete and Serious Materials that after a two decade hiatus, venture funding has found its way back to building in the past 2 years.
  • A new version of LEED is set for unveil at Greenbuild in Boston and will be a "quantum leap" - head of USGBC Rick Fedrizzi
  • Seems to be growing unease, and even skepticism, that cap and trade is going to be as easy at many thought. 2011 was heard repeatedly as a possible timeframe for legislation. Will a nascent business consensus fray into a mess? Are the economics fully understood to push forward aggressively? Is the Hill ready? Anecdotally at least, the answer is still clearly in the balance. One interesting alternative presented was Cap and Dividend.
  • Like building, energy efficiency is still struggling to get more than a lot of lip service. Is recession the catalyst for cracking that nut? It was mentioned as a possibility.
  • Hybrids and small cars are the fastest growing segment of US automotive market, according to Beth Lowery of GM. "The price of fuel is driving behavior," she said.
  • "Living building" that taps into biomimicry is going mainstream. HOK - the giant architecture and design firm is starting to position itself as "bio-inspired", according to Janine Benyus, the founder of the Biomimicry Guild. Benyus' group is also looking to launch Asknature.org - a cool idea that allows anyone to query a database with questions about how nature addresses specific issues.
  • Coke's environmental guru Jeff Seabright said look for something soon about consumer-facing information about "water used" in the company's products. It may not be on-package information, but something is coming. This would be welcome, since embedded water in consumer products is still very opaque to the consumer (for example, according to Dow Chemicals' Scott Noesen, it takes 2,000 liters of water to make a McDonald's hamburger if you do the whole-cost analysis.) There is nutritional information, now carbon labeling information has appeared, and water is the logical next step. Let's hope it happens.
  • Vinod Khosla was the most provocative in my opinion during a 1:1 with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky. Highlights include:
    • Next generation batteries are not on a rapidly declining cost curve and require a quantum jump with a high probability of failure
    • The "Prius is more greenwash than green"
    • Technology for clean energy will only succeed if it passes the Chindia price test. If it's affordable in China and India then it has a shot.
    • Carbon emissions from all-electric cars are 3x more than that of cars powered by cellulosic ethanol.
  • The highest correlation in the movement of solar stocks is the price of oil (not the price of natural gas as would be expected) - David Edwards, analyst at Morgan Stanley
  • Both Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant and Khosla cited the same statistics placing biofuel as the fourth leading cause for the spike in global grain prices. The top three - rise in oil prices, drought in Australia and change in eating habits in developing countries like China (to more meat). I found one paper on Khosla's site about Fuel vs. Food, but it didn't appear to include the above list. Anyone know where it comes from?
  • When Fortune's Marc Gunther asked a panel of Xerox, GM, SC Johnson and Dupont executives what grade corporate America should get in addressing environmental challenges (10 being the best grade), all of them said "1″, with the exception of GM's Lowery, who gave a "2″ because of innovation happening around new technologies. If you want to actually score a company, you can thanks to the CEO of Stonyfield Farm Gary Hirshberg, who has created an online corporate scorecard at Climatecounts.org
Comments (3) | Permalink
Next Page »