Energy Literacy Advocates Newsroom

As 2008 closes, renewable energy companies are faced with a complex economic and political environment. While many federal and international incentives and credits have been extended for their products, the economic downturn and low price of oil have forced several large renewable companies into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Fairing best in 2008, wind and solar companies will enjoy extended benefits in 2009, thanks to an extension package tied to the $700 billion Congressional financial bailout. The real economic squeeze has caught biofuel companies, particularly those with publicly traded stocks, which lost up to 95% of their value in 2008.

Despite a sober market forecast, renewable companies continue to enjoy set market shares for 2009, due to government mandates on renewable energy usage. Joseph Muscat, Ernst & Young's Americas director of cleantech and venture capital, predicts that clean energy and renewables will be the first economic segment to experience significant rebound.

To read the full Associated Press synopsis, click here.

Labels: biofuels, economy, energy, renewables

December 2, 2008 - On the heels of the U.S. recession announcement, oil fell to $48.31 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil prices have dropped by 68 percent since reaching a record $147.27 on July 11.

Despite the precipitous decline in prices, OPEC leaders tabled an additional production cut at the November 29 summit, delaying the decision until the next meeting. Not all OPEC members have complied with recent cuts, as indicated by the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned producer statement that it would provide full contractual volumes to Asian refiners.

Additionally, the drop in crude oil prices has forced demand and prices for biofuel components, such as palm oil, down.

To read more from Bloomberg's summary of oil market activity, click here.

Labels: biofuels, economy, energy

"Oil at $110 a barrel. Gasoline at $3.35 (or more) per gallon. Diesel fuel at $4 per gallon. Independent truckers forced off the road. Home heating oil rising to unconscionable price levels. Jet fuel so expensive that three low-cost airlines stopped flying in the past few weeks. This is just a taste of the latest energy news, signaling a profound change in how all of us, in this country and around the world, are going to live - trends that, so far as anyone can predict, will only become more pronounced as energy supplies dwindle and the global struggle over their allocation intensifies."

So begins Michael Klare's article chronicling the end of the energy world as we know it. Klare identifies intense competition over energy sources among economic powers, insufficiency of existing energy supplies, the delay in developing alternative energy sources, migration of wealth and power to energy-rich nations and a growing risk of conflict as factors shaping our new energy reality.

For the full text of this article, click here.

Labels: energy, energy policy, energy sources, oil price

Time magazine recently ran an article on the "peak oil" concept - another case of the mainstream media slowly becoming more aware of the energy issues we are now and will continue to face. An excerpt:

"This isn't quite the same as saying that oil production has peaked and is about to start declining sharply--the view of the true peakists. In "peak lite," as some call it, the big issues are not so much geological as political, technical, financial and even human-resource-related (the world apparently suffers from a dearth of qualified petroleum engineers). These factors all delay the arrival of oil on the market, meaning that production would not so much peak as plateau. But with demand rising sharply, especially from China and India, even a plateau could be precarious."

Very true, and great to see in a major publication. View the whole article here.

Labels: energy, energy policy, oil companies, peak oil, u.s. energy policy

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/20/warming.poll/index.html

Poll shows Americans getting more concerned about global warming

Survey finds more Americans believe phenomenon proven. Majority say U.S. should take action even if other nations don't. Most Americans believe emissions from cars, industries the primary cause.

(CNN) -- Most Americans blame emissions from cars and industrial plants as the primary cause of global warming and believe the United States should reduce levels even if other countries don't, a survey shows.

Fifty-six percent of poll respondents said the phenomenon of global warming has been proven, and can be largely blamed on human endeavors, such as power plants and factories, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll.

In comparison, 21 percent of those surveyed claimed global warming problems are caused either by natural changes or are unproven.

Sixty-six percent of Americans believe the United States should do what it can to reduce global warming, even if other nations ignore it. This compares with 52 percent of respondents who believed that way in 2001.

In that year, 34 percent thought the United States needed to reduce harmful gases only if other nations did. A much smaller proportion, 16 percent, responded that way in 2007.

The survey of 1,212 adults was conducted October 12-14 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Labels: climate change, energy, energy policy, global warming, u.s. energy policy

This article by Thomas Friedman is one of the best I've read recently on the subject of the great divide between the present level of energy/global warming rhetoric we're hearing these days vs. actual policy options being developed and implemented. There is way too much at stake for this generation and the next one for us to waste the narrow window of oportunity we have on fiddling around while Rome burns. We simply cannot allow energy and global warming to become co-opted by those who benefit from a lot of talk and gesture about energy and global warming when swift and decisive action is needed!

June 3, 2007Op-Ed Columnist, nytimes.comOur Green Bubble By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Surely the most glaring contrast in American political life today is the amount of words, speeches and magazine covers devoted to the necessity of “going green,” “combating climate change” and gaining “energy security,” and the actual solutions being offered by our leaders to do any of these things. You could very comfortably drive a Hummer through the gap between our words and deeds.

We are playing pretend — which, when you think about it, is really troubling. Here are the facts: Our worst enemies, like Iran, have been emboldened by all their petrodollars. The vast majority of scientists tell us that global warming caused by our burning of fossil fuels is a real danger. And with three billion new consumers from India, Russia and China joining the world economy, it is inevitable that manufacturing clean, green power systems, appliances, homes and cars will be the next great global industry. It has to be, or we will not survive as a species.

And yet ... and yet our president and our Congress still won’t give us an energy bill that would create the legal and economic framework to address these issues at the speed and scale required.

If you were President Bush, wouldn’t you want to leave behind something big, bold and important on energy, just in case — you know, just in case — Iraq doesn’t turn out so well? I sure would. But the president still has not challenged Congress or the country to undertake a radical departure on energy. So we still have only “energy politics,” not “energy policy.” Like previous energy bills, the packages working through the House and Senate today represent more “the sum of all lobbies,” as the energy expert Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free Coalition, puts it, not the sum of our best ideas.

Some lawmakers are pushing corn ethanol from Iowa, either because they hail from that area and are looking to give more welfare to farmers by wasting money on an alternative fuel that will never reach the scale of what is needed, or because they plan to run in the Iowa caucuses. Others are pushing huge subsidies to turn coal into gasoline, because they come from coal states. Those who don’t come from Michigan want higher mileage standards imposed on Detroit, while those who come from Michigan prefer to continue their assisted suicide of the U.S. auto industry by blocking tougher mileage requirements.

“The only green that they are serious about in Congress right now is the one with Ben Franklin’s picture on it,” Mr. Luft said.

Yes, it is helpful that Mr. Bush expressed a desire last week to work with other nations to limit greenhouse gases. His bully pulpit matters. But no one will — or should — take him seriously unless his government first leads by example. What would that look like? It has to start with a clear, long-term price signal. That is, a carbon tax or gasoline tax — or a cap and trade system with a binding national ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions — which would set a price for dumping carbon into the atmosphere or driving a gas-guzzling car.

Get Washington to signal that gasoline is never going to retreat from a level of $3.50 or $4 a gallon — and that wind and solar subsidies will be there for a decade, not stop and start as they always have before; get Washington to commit to buying a fixed volume of solar and wind power for government buildings and Army bases for 10 years, with only U.S.-based manufacturers able to compete for contracts; get Washington to set a new fleet average of 35 miles per gallon for Detroit within 10 years — with no loopholes; establish government loan guarantees for any company that wants to build a nuclear power plant; and, finally, build a national transmission grid — a green power superhighway — so that solar energy from Arizona or wind from Wyoming can power homes in Chicago. Do all that and our private sector will take America from green laggard to green leader.

Unfortunately, Congress is brewing instead a hodgepodge of incrementalism. This is particularly disappointing when America’s corporate icons — G.M., G.E., A.I.G., DuPont, PepsiCo — “have all come out in favor of a national mandatory limit on carbon emissions,” notes Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. “But Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have not risen to their challenge.” We have a multigenerational problem that requires a systemic, multigenerational response, and that can happen only if we get our energy prices right.

Only that will guarantee green innovation and commercialization at scale. Anything less is wasted breath and wasted money — and any candidate who says otherwise is only contributing to global warming by adding hot air.

Labels: economy, energy, global warming, u.s. energy policy