Archive for the Field Notes Category

    Video: Rep. Markey at Commonwealth Club’s Climate One

    Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

    San Francisco, Aug 13, 2010

    Congressman Ed Markey, Democrat from Mass., Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and co-author of the Waxman-Markey bill which passed in the House but never made it through the Senate, spoke at the Commonwealth Club’s Climate One in San Francisco. He remains optimistic about the eventual passage of a comprehensive climate change bill, anticipating a growing wave of support coming from the emerging ‘green generation’.

    Markey strongly urged Californians to defeat the upcoming proposition 23, placed on the ballot by two Texas oil companies aimed at turning back SB32, California’s clean energy law.

    “You cannot lose this issue out here. It’s an imperative for you to beat back these two Texas oil companies. They are only interested in the short term profitability of their shareholders. They are not interested in the creation of renewable energy jobs here in California, of saving the planet, of backing out of imported oil.”

    Excerpts: “And I think, in the end, we have a responsibility to the rest of the world. Most of the CO2 is red white and blue which is up there. You cannot preach temperance form a bar stool. You cannot tell China and India that you should stop, if the countries, along with the EU, that are most responsible for the creation of the problem, continue with the very same activities. So we need to have the moral and political platform from which to provide the leadership to the rest of the world, and the alternative technologies that can be developed in those countries, deployed in those countries, which would substitute for the pathway which the United States went down.”

    “I think the rest of the world would respond if we did take that leadership role. I think that the whole world wants the US and China to partner in the twenty first century, but until we begin to lead we should have no expectations that China is going to follow. ”

    “In the same way that the young people, the freedom riders went South, in the same way that the young women, the suffragettes rose up, so to the green generation is arriving, as voters and as powerful forces inside the community who are going to demand this change.”

    “And while we might start later and at a lower level than you like, we can intensify in the later years in a way that avoids the worst consequences if we haven’t already reached a tipping point, which is my hope, then we still have time to save the planet.”

    The first half hour of the Markey talk can be seen on the video posted by climate one.

    Report by James George

    Video: Report from Copenhagen at the Free Speech Cafe, UC Berkeley. Panelist Gopal Dayeneni

    Thursday, April 29th, 2010

    April 27, 2010 Free Speech Cafe, UC Berkeley.

    Part 1. Panelist Gopal Dayeneni likens the climate crisis to an inevitable deadly descent of a damaged passenger airliner, using first class and coach seating to represent equity issues.

    Also speaking was Christie Keith of GAIA, the Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance.

    Video: Severin Borenstein, Co-Dir of the Energy Institute at Haas, speaking at UC Berkeley’s Energy Symposium 2010

    Friday, March 5th, 2010

    Berkeley, March 4, 2010

    Severin Borenstein, Co-Director of the Energy Institute at Haas, moderated and spoke in the “Heated Debate over Cooling Policies” panel as part of UC Berkeley’s Energy Symposium 2010.
    As moderator, he wasn’t scheduled to be a speaker, but he filled in for scheduled panelist California State Assemblymember Nancy Skinner who wasn’t able to attend.

    Borenstein’s analysis of the likely effects of proposed cap and trade plans on the global consumption of fossil fuels was both compelling and troubling, as he made the case that in order to effectively curtail the global use of fossil fuels, the price of carbon would have to be much higher than $30 per ton. Borenstein said that alternative energy doesn’t just have to beat the current market price of gas and coal, it really has to beat fossil fuels’ very low extraction cost (plus any added carbon price), since current fossil fuel prices have plenty of room to flexibly drop with changing market conditions.

    Honking horns can be heard from the street below as drivers respond to boycotting students protesting against statewide budget cuts and fee hikes.

    Partial excerpt:
    “It does look we are on a track, if we ever actually do get climate legislation, to get an extraordinarily low price, one that will cause no press conferences outside the gas stations. $30 a ton, which seems to be, even that is a difficult price for Congress to accept, would be about 27 cents a gallon at the pump. We see fluctuations like that all the time, and I think, it just would draw no attention. It would also cause almost no change. $30 a ton doesn’t take coal out of being the most efficient cost effective way to produce electricity. If that’s your entire climate policy, you continue to make electricity with pulverized coal power plants. It’s worse than that I think in ways people don’t appreciate, which is that the price of fossil fuels right now reflects not just the cost of extracting it but a scarcity rent associated with a shortage of fossil fuels. This is even true in coal because of the transportation costs for moving coal, but it’s clearly true in oil, everybody understands that most of the oil can be extracted for well under $80 a barrel. The flip side of that is, if you really are going to drive those fuels out of the market, which is what you have to do, if we’re talking about market mechanisms you have to make it uneconomic to produce energy with those fossil fuels. Think about what happens if you start using a lot less oil. The price of oil will fall. But if it falls to $40 a barrel, the
    price of gasoline’s going to go down to. That’s going to make it much less economic to use alternatives to gasoline. Likewise if the price of coal falls, or if mine mouth power plants continue to operate even when carbon prices go up, you’re not driving them out of the market.”

    “What that means is that if you really think through the full economics of what it would take in terms of market mechanisms to remove fossil fuels from the system, a price of $30 a ton isn’t going to do it, and my guess is a price of $80 a ton isn’t going to do it. Because what’s going to happen is as the price of carbon goes up the price of fossil fuels goes down, and they continue to be economic. What the alternatives have to beat is not the current price of fossil fuels, what they have to beat is the true cost of extracting them. That is you have to be able to make them uneconomic at just the marginal cost of extraction, and fossil fuels are incredibly cheap to extract and burn. So if we’re talking about a market mechanism, I think that we need to be thinking about prices that are well in excess of the prices that Congress now talks about.

    This worries me about cap and trade, it worries me even more about taxes, because once you start talking about taxes and you lock in a number, cap and trade has the flexibility to then change if you’re not making progress on reducing carbon. Taxes requires a new act of Congress, literally, to get to a higher tax, so we put in a $30 a ton, $40 a ton, some sort of tax, and if we find out it’s doing nothing, we like the EU is now, are shocked to find out that despite the fact that we’ve passed legislation, our greenhouse gas emissions have continued to climb, and now we have to start all over again, and I think it just becomes more and more difficult. Unfortunately, when I’ve said this to my environmental friends, they have not hopefully but reassuringly told me that it will be easier because there will be more obvious climate disasters by then. You know that just can’t be the right public policy track, right?”

    Report by James George

    Video: Google’s Green Energy Czar Bill Weihl Calls for Investment in Innovation to Address Climate Change

    Thursday, March 4th, 2010

    Berkeley, March 3, 2010

    Bill Weihl, Google’s Green Energy Czar, was the keynote speaker at the BERC’s (Berkeley Energy and Research Collaborative) Innovation Expo kicking off the Energy Symposium at the University of California Berkeley. The evening event featured some 80 poster presentations by energy researchers, students, and policy makers, and the local start-up community.


    Partial excerpts from Bill Weihl’s talk:

    “We see the climate problem as one of the most pressing problems facing humanity.”

    “And I’m sure all of you know the scale of the problem we face, we need to transform our energy infrastructure virtually completely. It’s perhaps the most daunting problem that modern civilization has ever faced on many fronts, technology, leadership, global cooperation, and on and on. The good news is that … it is a solvable problem.”

    “We need really serious breakthroughs in technology and we need them soon, to provide the… clean energy technologies required to transform our energy infrastructure at scale in the time frame needed to really avert what could be catastrophic climate change.”

    Bill also commented on Google’s RECC Intiative (Renewable Electricity Cheaper than Coal)
    “Our belief is that getting the price of renewables below the price of the polluting alternatives is essential to get them adopted by scale. To really transform our energy infrastructure and get to zero carbon by 2050 we need cheap clean sources of energy. We do believe we need to put a price on carbon and we need to begin to internalize all those externalities. That will send a price signal, hopefully that will begin to spur innovation, it’ll spur deployment for zero carbon technologies… but that alone I believe is almost certainly not enough..and maybe a different way of putting it, it’s the same argument I heard Bernie ? of MIT make a years ago, about actually trying to take action around climate change. It’s really an application of the precautionary principle. If we fail to take action because we think maybe climate change isn’t real and we’re wrong, the consequences are enormous. In the same way, if we rely solely on a price signal on carbon, that in particular for a number of years is unlikely to be a very strong signal, and assume that will spur the innovation that we need, and in twenty years discover that we’re wrong, it’s far too late to fix this. So I believe we need to deploy many policy mechanisms, and one of the most important is investment in technology innovation, directly investing in the innovation to develop the technologies we need, not relying on a price signal and hoping the market will stir the right innovation.”

    Part 2

    Report by James George

    Field Notes : SolarCon in Hyderabad, India

    Saturday, November 14th, 2009

    Nov 9 – 11, Hyderabad, India

    Beyond spicier, more delicious lunches, there were other notable differences between India’s first SolarCon India2009 solar conference, held in association with InterSolar India/SEMI, and the recent InterSolar/SEMI San Francisco conference. Whereas in San Francisco three full solar exhibit floors were crowded with large photovoltaic panels from an bewildering number of manufacturers, in Hyderabad the sparser and smaller PV displays from just a few companies didn’t really stand out even on the single floor of exhibitors – perhaps just approaching the smaller number of solar thermal displays in SF. And as for solar thermal in Hyderabad, only a few images on exhibitor display panels were to be seen.

    Photon

    Photon of Hyderabad makes Solar Thermal Systems

    HHVBut there were to be found technologies appropriate to the conditions of the region, such as the Diya Solar PV Lantern by HHV Solar, a solar charged alternative to kerosene lighting for rural homes off the grid. In a Climate Change and PV session, panelist Vishnu Reddy presented a statistic making it clear just how necessary such solar powered alternatives are: 100 million homes in India rely on kerosene for lighting, a public health concern.

    PV on display

    Why lug around heavy panels to trade shows?

    Scale miniature rural electrification PV model at SolarCon

    Tuesday’s PV & Climate Change panel featured speakers making the case for photovoltaic solar power as a climate change mitigation solution.

    InterSolar West

    Shankar Venkateswaran of SustainAbility made several points, including:

    The 2 degrees C threshold is non-negotiable – the results will otherwise be catastrophic.

    GHG concentrations of 400ppm or below give the best chance of avoiding a 2 degree C rise.

     


    Video:
    Fielding an audience question, Shankar Venkateswaran makes an insightful point about the lack of existing infrastructures with the long scale time horizon needed to respond appropriately to climate change.


    Shirish Sinha of WWF presented an analysis based on the concept of a carbon budget – the maximum total amount of CO2 which can be released into the atmosphere between 1990 and 2050 if global temperatures are to remains within the 2 degree ’safety’ limit which scientists say is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Since Northern industrialized nations have already used up a good percentage of this budget, the argument is made that, to be fair, it is the developed nations that must cut back dramatically while allowing developing nations to use a higher share of the remaining budget.

    At a time when budget constraints are being cited as an argument against climate mitigation commitments, Sinha reminded the audience that “the cost of inaction will be much higher than the cost of action”.

    ShrishSinha

    Another subtle difference here between the flavor of the GHG discussion in Hyderabad vs. San Francisco involves the consideration of those populations expected to acquire access to energy with development in the near future. In SF, many generally frame the goal as to quickly reduce GHG emissions of existing consumers, with the help of solar power, towards achieving dramatic emission reductions by 2020 or 2050. The concern about billions of new ‘consumers’ in developing nations getting access to energy is often presented with an overtone of ‘necessary, fair, but nonetheless somewhat threatening’. In Hyderabad, a different tone was consistently heard across several speakers: getting poorer and more vulnerable people access to electricity was simply good, right, and just – another social problem to be addressed as part of solving climate change and equity issues – with PV solar as one solution to provide that rural electricity to those areas off the grid.


    Shirish Garud

    Shirish Garud of the Energy and Resources Institute

    Video: Shirish Garud frames the need to provide electricity to 450 million people as an adaptation issue, electricity being necessary to enable people to respond to climate change or any other calamity.


    Aaron Zude

    Aaron Zude of SEMI adds a damper to the ‘how green thou art’ PV revelry, describing in some detail the many chemicals used in manufacturing solar panels which have GHG equivalents far exceeding CO2.

    FGHGs

    In practical terms, the climate change issue may help secure governmental financial incentives, still in both Hyderabad and San Francisco conferences one gets the sense of hundreds of businessmen pursuing opportunities in a promising market rather than dwelling on the potential catastrophic effects of climate change. Yet as evidenced by the scale of vendor investment, the Indian market is clearly not as compelling as that in the United States. However, an expected mid-November major announcement by the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh is expected to greatly buoy the status of solar in India.

    \Tea time

    Tea time between panel discussions

    Puneet Rustagi

    Panelist Puneet Rustagi of the World Bank

    As important as climate change may be, it’s worth noting that the panels on economic and policy aspects of promoting solar power drew a larger audience than the climate change panel.

    Audience

    A strong turnout for Puneet Rustagi on the financing of PV.

     

    CC audience

    The sparser yet still respectable audience for the afternoon PV and Climate Change panel.

    SolarCon has already announced plans for a bigger and better SolarCon India2010.

    Article by James George

    Senior Advisor Matt Rogers Keynote Address on Energy Stimulus Money at Launch of Hass Energy Institute at UC Berkeley

    Saturday, October 31st, 2009

    Oct 30, 2009 University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business

    Matt Rogers, Senior Advisor to US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, gave the keynote address today to celebrate the launch of the Energy Institute at Haas. He spoke on the disbursement of energy-related stimulus money. The video below features the concluding three minutes of his talk, where he highlights how federal stimulus money encourages private capital investment in the energy sector.

    Matt Rogers

     

    "Charting America’s energy and environmental future represents one of the defining issues of our time … and we need the kind of innovative interdisciplinary thinking like the Institute here in order to find the practical solutions to the problems we face as the markets begin to take shape."

     

     

    Video Text: "This is going to be a journey, this is a journey that we are just starting with the recovery act. The center for American progress estimates it’s going to take a hundred billion to two hundred billion dollars year over the next twenty years to achieve the nations energy and environmental  goal. That’s a pretty significant investment. So what were doing through the recovery act is we’re making a down payment. It’s a down payment because we can get a set of projects started that demonstrate that these project work, that they’re technologically feasible, but also they demonstrate that these projects are economically attractive projects for the market to take on. And that’s where our collaboration with CEA is so important, is to make sure that the market comes to the end of the next year and says, ‘hey you know, those projects the government funded – boy I wish I had invested in that project for that is a really terrific funding opportunity.’"

    Westergaard"And we have to bring private capital off the sidelines. If you take a look at, for example at smart grid awards. We put 3.3 Billion dollars in this week, private sector put 4.7 Billion dollars in, so we got 8.1 Billion dollars of funding done. We made a conditional loan guarantee to Solyndra for $535 million dollars. As a result of the that, the company was able to go out and raise $320 million dollars more, and all of a sudden now we have the basis for a factory …"

    "We gave a grant of $290 million dollars to A123, which interestingly got started out of MIT with a small business incentive research grant of $250,00 in 2001.
    Started with 5 guys, and now it went public after we made our $290 million battery award, to go public for $480 million dollars, and are actually going to have more than a billion dollars in market capitalization, between 2001 -$250,000- and now, and this is a story about if the federal government does its part, then the private sector can do it’s part, and all of a sudden we have a real market flowing here that can actually go on for an extended period of time.
    But we can’t fund all the positive … projects, and the market actually needs to pick those up, and long term we have to create the right kind of market incentives in order to make sure that kind of capital formation continues for a long period of time."

    "The secretary frames this as the next industrial revolution, that we have the opportunity to transform the way we use energy, the way we deal with our environment by using science and technology and innovation to change the game. And I think he’s right. "

    "Today we have energy policy, environmental policy aligned in a way that they’ve never been before, and we have the resources behind them in order to really make a material difference. Now our opportunity is really to deliver the kind of innovation, the kind of productivity improvements, and the kind of market structures and capital formation that are necessary to sustain this for the long period of time, and if we do that, the United States will be a leader both in terms of policy formation. but also in terms of the fundamental economics here. We’ll be a leader in the energy sector, we’ll be a leader in the environmental section, not only in the United States, but rather as a manufacturer for the world. That’s our hope and where we’re headed and hopefully this down payment has moved us in the right direction. And with that I’ll stop and I’ll be happy to take some questions."

    Field Notes: International Day of Climate Action

    Saturday, October 24th, 2009

    Oct 24, 2009 San Francisco, CA.

    Climate Demo

    Demonstrations were held around the world Saturday to focus attention on the atmospheric CO2 target of 350 parts per million. This is the amount considered safe by many climate scientists, including NASA climatologist James Hansen, and promoted globally on this ‘International Day of Climate Action’, by 350.org. The current atmospheric quantity of CO2 is 386 ppm, and according to many projections it will be extremely challenging to prevent levels from reaching 450 ppm in coming decades.

    The gathering in San Francisco comprised a diverse inter generational crowd who came together to hear speeches, poetry, music, and to form a human image of the number 350, similar to so many images of the number 350 from around the world. The amplified sound for the event was powered by volunteers pedaling bicycle electricity generators.

    The five o’clock chimes began ringing in at Justin Herman Plaza as SF City Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi began to speak:

    “I want to thank everyone who made the commitment to be here. I want to thank Greenpeace, I want to thank climatechange.org, I want to thank all the environmentalists and all those advocates who saw fit to draw a line in the sand to tell our national leaders, and to tell our allies, and to tell all those who will be congregating at Copenhagen that we absolutely insist on having an effective and accountable climate change plan that takes care of the decades of degradation.”

    “We are mobilizing to broadcast and to amplify our message across the sea, across all continents. It is absolutely inspiring that there are hundreds and hundreds of cities who are having concurrent actions like this – that there are veterans of this movement, and newcomers of this movement, generations of this movement to save our environment, to save endangered habitats, to save humanity, to save our mother earth, because they realize that the clock ticks for us.”

    Expressing the growing frustration among environmentalists over the pace and direction of climate legislation, Mirkarimi said:

    “We’re determined and we’re resolved – we understand where lines in the sand must be drawn. In Washington – even those who we gleefully elected and enthusiastically elected into Congress or the White House – liberal or not, we have no time for them to get with it.”


    Farm Sanctuary’s Walk for Farm Animals contingent marched down Market Street to join the larger demonstration, drawing attention to both the disastrous effects of factory farming on climate change as well as to cruelty to farm animals. Many of the people in this group are vegan or vegetarian.

    GopalGopal of Movement Generation addressed the crowd about climate change within the context of environmental justice.

    “We are not on the brink of an ecological crisis, we are in one. We absolutely have to get off that system”

    Gopal stressed equity issues and community based struggle to defend people’s rights – including environmental rights such as clean air and water.

    “Getting to 350 is only one piece of this puzzle. What really matters is how we get to 350. Are we going to believe the lies and false solutions of the system that got us here? Are we going to allow the corporations who created the problem – are we going to allow the empire that built its privilege on the backs of people all over the planet to craft the solutions or are we going to take control and craft those solutions ourselves?”

    “There’s another lie that they want us to believe – that we are all in the same boat. We are not all in the same boat. We are all part of the same fleet, floating on the same ocean, heading to the same iceberg. But the big ship has put all the little ships up front, and are figuring that that’s going to buffer the impact of hitting that iceberg.”

    “Poor people all over this planet are the least responsible for creating this problem. They are the first hit, they are the hardest hit,and they also hold the key to our survival. Indigenous peoples, Land based peoples, traditional knowledge, that is what we need to survive. We need to honor it, we need to cultivate it in ourselves, we need to rebirth it in our communities.”

    “The solutions will not come from the corporate haven that is Copenhagen, they will come from the actions of everyday people, organizing together, in together in our communities building power from the bottom up.”

    “The story of the solution to our problems to our problems begins with the communities on the ground on the front lines of the root causes of this problem. The communities in Richmond who are fighting Chevron, the communities in Appalachia who are fighting coal, the communities in Alberta who are fighting tar sands. Indigenous peoples all over this planet fighting to protect their forests and their livelihoods. Fisher folk all over this planet fighting industrial trolling. Those communities on the front line of this struggle are the source of our solutions. They will band together with us in a multisectoral people’s movement all over this planet and here in the United States, and we will exercise our people power in the streets to drive those rights based policies that protect people all over this planet, that protect people all over this planet, that protect the rights of women, that protect the rights of workers.That protects the rights of indigenous peoples, and that protect my right and your right to clean air, to fresh water to healthy food, and to safe places to live and breath every day.”

    “That is the solution we need. We will not convince the policy makers, the corporate controls or the government of the United States to do it for us. We will make them do it, we will make them do it every day all the time.”

    Gopal went on to recall the demonstrations of December 1999 in Seattle against the World Trade Organization which took many by surprise:

    “Now imagine waking up on Dec 1 1999 and learning about the WTO for the first time by watching it collapse on TV. Well that moment is upon us again exactly 10 years later. In December 2009 the same people, the same forces, are going to amass again in Copenhagen, and it is not just about carbon in the atmosphere, it is about global finance, it is about forests it is about rights, it is about healthcare, it is about everything about our lives. And if we do not organize together to make sure that people are put first, the rights of profit will rule.”

    I interviewed Gopal as the demonstration was ending. He said did not expect an agreement to be reached in Copenhagen, and was critical of the proposed legislation in the United States:

    “The idea that any bill is better than no bill is a lie. The climate legislation that came through the Congress and the climate legislation that will likely to come through the senate is worse than nothing. It’s not that it doesn’t go far enough -it’s that it goes down the wrong road.”

    Q: Why are you opposed to cap & trade?

    “First of all there’s actually no real need for complicated, sophisticated, speculative financial instruments for trading in pollution and what is essentially the commodification of atmospheric space – which is turning it into a commodity which can be bought and sold on a market – when solutions are much simpler and much easier to make accountable much more transparent and much easier to verify. For example, an immediate moratorium on all new exploration for any fossil fuels. We know that fossil fuels cause the problem, so today, we could take every penny that the fossil fuels industry spend in looking for new fossil fuels and just say “you can’t do that anymore” and all that has to go into clean technology, into green jobs, into worker transition, into working training programs, into a just transition program. We know that oil is there, but we know that is drilling for it an using that oil is catastrophic to life on this planet and so we’re going to make a ban on that.”

    “We could institute a cap and tax. We could set a limit. If you stay within it you get charged a certain amount, if you go over by a certain percent you get charged at one rate, if you go over by another percent you get changed at a higher rate. We set that, the cap goes down every year. We set maybe a five year limit, if after five years you can’t get your corporation you business you industry your industrial activity within the cap then we’re going to revoke your corporate charter.”

    Q: One benefit that has been attributed of cap & trade is that it allows for transfer of wealth from Northern countries to Southern nations. Can cap and tax solutions allow for transfer of wealth to developing nations?

    “Yes. In Copenhagen one of the sticking points that’s going to get fought over between the “industrial Northern countries” and the “global South” is whether were going to have a “market based mechanism” for financing which cap & trade is, or whether were going to have a funds based mechanism. Now, everybody’s familiar with the debt, that poor countries owe to the Northern countries through the World Bank or the IMF, that industrial countries give out loans to do really bad things and then make you pay them back over hundreds of years.”

    “Well there’s another kind of debt called an ecological debt. It’s the debt that the industrial North, that we owe to people all over the planet, to the countries of the Global South for five hundred years of resource colonization and exploitation. We’ve built our civilization off of the backs of other peoples resources and over exploiting common resources like atmospheric space, which nobody should get to own, or fresh water, which nobody should get to own. And so if we start looking at ecological debt as a framework for looking at how we’re going to finance technology transfer, and how we’re going to finance solutions in the global South and equity, then there’s a whole new set of options on the table, a funds based mechanism, where the industrial North, the taxation of carbon from polluting activity goes into a fund and that fund is distributed on the basis of equity to countries in the Global South. It’s a verifiable system, it can be a transparent system. It can be a democratic system.”

    “The United States is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gases historically. What’s fair is that we do more than anyone else to deal with the problem. We have built our society on the backs of other people. What’s fair is that we give back a little bit now.”

    Article by James George

    Field Notes: "Wind Energy Technology, Innovations and Challenges"

    Saturday, October 24th, 2009

    Oct 23, 2009 Berkeley, CA.

    WestergaardCarten Hein Westergaard, of Vestas Technology R& D Americas, Inc., spoke at the Univeristy of California Berkeley today on wind power – or more accurately, Vestas and wind power.

    Vestas is a longstanding major player in the wind energy business, boasting 20% of the global market, some 4000 employees, $595 million in investments, and 39,000 wind turbines installed to date. One Vestas V90-3MW turbine was said to be capable of producing an equivalent energy to 7,582 barrels of oil annually. Denmark, global home to Vestas, is now producing 20% of their energy with wind turbines. With the green revolution in full swing, Vestas is installing an average of one new turbine every four hours.

    The pace of that production schedule is impression just given the sheer magnitude of these machines. The rotor alone weighs 41 tonnes, the nazelle, 70 tonnes, and the tower a whopping 285 tonnnes. A slide of a train with a long string of cars fully loaded with enourmous turbine components clearly made the point of just how substantial an undertaking it is to transport and assemble these massive structures.

    WestergaardWind turbines look relatively simple from a distance, but Westergaard pointed out there are real engineering challenges to assembling, installing and maintaining wind turbines with a twenty year lifespan. In real world conditions, they face multiple and ongoing stresses, including such things as lightning and gale winds which can reach 32 meters/sec. To service the turbines, Carsten showed an image of an interesting craneless device somewhat akin to the way people climb coconut trees.

    Nevertheless, Westergaard said the main impediment to rapid growth in wind power is not turbine engineering, but rather limits in the existing transmission line infrastructure. These limits will need to be addressed as the United States and Europe struggle to achieve increasingly ambitious clean energy goals. By 2007, Europe had installed 56 gigawatts of wind power capacity, including 1gigawatts offshore. Their annual investment is on the order of $156 million. Westergaard said in the United States the DOE is plannning to reach 300 gigawatts by 2030, including 54 gigawatts of offshore wind energy.

    While interesting and informative, there are inherent limits to presentations like this by corporate representatives, since they serve the two goals of educating the public on pressing societal problems while simultaneously promoting the approach and image of the company being represented – and all the while remaining cautious not to compromise trade secrets.

    For example, even though a video of the entire talk and slideshow will soon be publically available online, as press I was not even allowed to take photos of the rather generic and non-revealing slideshow. This sort of propriatory restrictiveness is out of place in a public lecture at Berkeley, a publically funded university which also happens to be famous as the birthplace of the free speech movement. In Berkeley, concerns about corporate influence in the public sphere came to the fore in recent years over BP’s $500 million funding for biofuels research.

    Many in the green circles many would choose to emphasize the distinction between clean wind and dirty GHG emitting fossil fuels, yet Vestas takes an entirely different approach with their “Wind, Oil and Gas” slogan. From Vestas’ website:
    “The Wind, Oil and Gas vision expresses Vestas’ ambition of assuming leadership in the efforts to make wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels.” The goal is to make wind power mainstream.

    Vestas and wind energy are by no means without controversy. Many familiar issues such as workers rights, plant closings, and globalization come into play as big companies struggle to compete in turbulent markets. Recently there were demonstrations over a Vestas blade manufacturing plant closure in England.

    Article by James George

    Food, Inc. screened at UC Berkeley with Panel Discussion

    Thursday, October 8th, 2009

    Food, Inc was screened at UC Berkeley’s packed Wheeler Auditorium Tuesday night, followed by a lively panel discussion with (left to right) UC Professor and author Michael Pollan, Director Robert Kenner, author Eric Schlosser, and Farmer Troy Roush. Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, and Troy Roush were all prominently featured in the film.
    Food.inc Panel

    The panel discussed issues of power and control behind the food industry, vegetarianism, challenges making the film, and other topics.

    Read excerpts and see images in the full field notes report.

    Field Notes: Excerpts from a Food, Inc. Panel Discussion

    Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

    Food.inc Panel

    Food, Inc was screened at UC Berkeley’s packed Wheeler Auditorium Tuesday night, followed by a lively panel discussion with (left to right) UC Professor and author Michael Pollan, Director Robert Kenner, author Eric Schlosser, and Farmer Troy Roush. Pollan, Schlosser, and Roush were all prominently featured in the film.

    This compelling yet disturbing documentary has been widely detailed and reviewed elsewhere, though it’s worth noting that the largely student audience attending this Cal Performances event received both the film and panel with palpable enthusiasm.

    Panel discussion and Q & A excerpts:

    RobertKennerDirector Robert Kenner compares making Food, Inc. to his other films:

    …I also spent probably 15 more times in legal fees in making this film. And the big concern was whether the film was going to be enjoyed, whether they would stop it from getting to the theaters… There’s certainly a number of websites out there attacking it – I’m certainly not used to that experience.

    I was very concerned with the economy tanking whether there would be any audience for this movie. We had just rushed in about peak oil, and what’s going to happen if prices keep going up, then everything dropped and I thought oh my god this film has lost all relevancy, and the release date was for June … I wasn’t sure what was going to happen. But it turned out to be pretty good timing with Obama, also there was a sense that you can change things, so I was pleasantly surprised. It worked out really well on that front.

    EricEric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation)::

    When you look at Robbie’s film, and to me it’s an amazing documentary, and it’s one of the most successful documentaries of recent years. And yet in the grand media it’s almost insignificant. I mean the fast food chains will spend more on a thirty second ad then this film costs … The food industry spends something like nine or ten billion dollars on marketing alone every year. The marketing budget for this documentary was significantly less.

    And what’s so interesting to me is that they still need to try to crush it, and they still need to try to attack anyone who disagrees with them. And to me it’s really revealing about the broader system, and I care enourmously about food, and since Fast Food Nation came out- it’s almost a decade, and I really tried to use it as an activist, but the most important thing about this film for me has nothing to do with food. It has to do with concentrated power and how corrupting that is to this society, and how they don’t want you guys to even have a different point of view. The irony is that it’s all about free enterprise and freedom of expression, but as soon as somebody contradicts them, they try to crush them. And to me it’s actually very encouraging that the book, and the film, which in the realm of Hollywoood is an insignificant tiny little investment, can still irritate very mean powerful companies. And that’s kind of for me why I try to do the work that I do and I know it’s why you guys do, and I think it’s very revealing about this system and how it operates, and I hope all of you will really think twice about the messages your getting form the mainstream and seek out alternative sources of information.

    “…the most important thing about this film for me has nothing to do with food. It has to do with concentrated power and how corrupting that is to this society” – Eric Schlosser


    Audience Question: what do you think of vegetarians and veganism?

    MichaelPollanProfessor Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivore’s Dilemna & In Defense of Food ):

    I think we’re all omnivores here…

    I have absolutely enourmous respect for vegetarians and vegans for the simple reason that they have made a decision about what they are going to eat and they are conscious of it and they have connected their eating choices to their values. And having gone through that process, which so few Americans have, even now, I think is incredibly admirable. I’ve gone through that process too – I’ve come out in a different place. But you know, all that I ask is that they be conscious rather than eat in any particular way. I’m convinced that if people pay attention to what they are doing, where their food comes from, they will make better choices.

    RobertKennerRobert Kenner:

    Just on a level that we are going to have to eat less meat as we go on, that’s a factor. I think we’ve been attacked as many times by people from PETA for not saying that everyone has to be a vegetarian as we have from Monsanto. …hopefully this film will make you think about eating less meat without having to say that’s what we should do. and I think we should do it for numbers of reasons. But I didn’t think it would be helpful. And what I thought was most important was to make a film for people who had not thought about their food. And ultimately it’s a film that hopefully goes beyond food to think about politics and consolidation of corporate power, and I think it could be alienating if we had sort of demanded, before said this is very important, you should become a vegetarian, so hopefully this will influence people in that direction.


    Consumer Driven Change vs. Policy Change

    Michael Pollan (to Troy): How do you see change coming? You had the last word in the film and you suggested it’s up to consumers. Is that really where it’s going to come from, or is there the possibility of political action or changes in the policy world?

    RushFarmer Troy Roush: …Well, certainly the political options are there … we farmers are going to answer to the demand whatever that demand may be. So, if I no longer have a market for I’m producing I’m going to change my ways and I’m going to do it quite quickly. I’m going to adapt to that market.

    Michael Pollan: Are you free to do that though?

    Troy Roush: I’m a midwestern farmer, and midwestern farmers produce two things – corn and soybeans, and soybeans and corn. I’m a little different in that I have an organic segment and I also have a vegetable segement to my business. I produce seed tomatoes. When I first got into the tomato business, I planted something like eight acres of tomatoes, and I won’t go into the details of it cause it doesn’t even make sense to me…but that little mistake by planting those eight acres of tomatoes cost me $22,000 in fines from our government. In a lot of ways, farmers hands are tied. So we certainly do need to talk about policy change.

    Michael Pollan: But once you get into the commodity subsidy program, and your land is designated as corn bean land, your not allowed to produce anything else.

    Troy Roush: Absolutely true. Quite frankly, a lot of farmers don’t realize that when they put that little patch of sweet corn out there for the family to eat off of, they’re in violation of that rule and they can certainly be fined. The difference is I actually went and reported what I did and was fined as a result.


    QuestionJulie Klinger, UC-Berkeley grad student and fourth generation member of a Northern Illinois industrial farming family, quoted her family’s reaction to another film, “The Future of Food“, which raises similar issues: “They said that they were aware of the issues. They said three things: We don’t have a choice: we’re serfs on our own land; we are our own worst enemy*; and we want to take care of the soil that we farm”.

    [*by failing to organize a collective response to government programs which encourage overproduction, farmers act against their own self interest. The higher volume drives prices down, locking farmers onto a treadmill of of debt and dependency on continuous overproduction.]

    “What sort of farmer driven solutions might there be towards advocating policy change, and how can we at this university as students and faculty join with farmers to help really think about the kind of change that we want to see?”

    Troy Roush: You know as farmers the first thing that we’ve got to do is actually get control of the organizations that are supposed to represent us. ..as farmers we’ve got to take ownership of what we’re doing. I certainly appreciate the point that you family made – ‘we don’t have a choice’. It’s not necessarily true. We don’t have easy choices – but we certainly have choices.

    In my own situation I’ve diversified into a small organic segment that I’m proud of… I also diversified into non-GMO cream, also a very nice segment.

    We have options – we just have to explore them.


    Eric: What about the federal level. Let’s say you had control of the farm bureau, what kind of policies would you advocate for the new farm bill – are there policy changes – besides allowing you to grow vegetables – that would help to drive this market forward?

    Troy Roush: (Joking) I would go to the farm bureau and fire everybody so… (laughter)

    The way farm programs run – and I hate to get into this because it gets just far too complex, but the system of subsidies that we currently have is just ridiculous. They basically are set up to allow us to produce at below cost of production, and this has a lot of unintended consequences – and maybe they are intended I don’t know – the first thing is it provides grains or feedstocks to the CAPO, these large animal feeding operations at below cost of production, which actually drives the farmers out of the business of raising their own livestock – it’s crazy.

    The second unintended consequences are, at least I hope it’s unintended, is that a lot of developing nations can’t afford to grow their own food because we’re going to export to them below cost of production. So we need to change that model. We need to change from something below cost of production to something that sets a floor underneath the commodity price that insures a minimum wage would be a good way to put it.


    Monsanto

    Robert Kenner: One thing that happened is that Kramer of Mad Money show came out and said that he had inside information – because of Food.inc the White House was going to go after Monsanto – and the stock dropped, and it looks like that might be happening, so that’s … (applause).

    Troy Roush: “I’ve been battling Monsanto off and on now for thirteen years. You know, it wasn’t until Robbie’s film that I got my own page on the website.”

    ←Older