|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article contains two presentations by Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change at the U.S. Department of State. The first is a video presentation that he made at the Center for American Progress. The second is a Press Briefing that he gave February 16, 2010 at the State Department. He discusses the road forward despite some obvious setbacks at Copenhagen. He is optimistic about the possibilities and continues to work for positive changes that will protect the global environment.
Video
Todd Stern, US State Department’s Special Envoy on Climate Change at the Center for American Progress
In February 2010, Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy for climate change, spoke about the lessons of the COP-15 summit in Copenhagen last December, the significance of the Copenhagen Accord that was negotiated there, and the path forward over the coming year and beyond. This was Stern’s first public speech since the January 31 deadline for inscribing mitigation targets and actions in the Copenhagen Accord. An expert discussion panel follows the address.
Introductory Remarks: John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress
Featured Speaker: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of State
Featured Panelists:
Location: Center for American Progress, 1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005
Briefing by the Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern
MR. TONER: Good afternoon. We’re very pleased to have Special Envoy Todd Stern here today to give us the lay of the land on international climate negotiations post-Copenhagen. As you know, in late January, the U.S. announced that it submitted its pledge to limit or reduce greenhouse emissions under the Copenhagen Accord, as did all of the world’s major economies. These countries represent more than 80 percent of global emissions and this constitutes an unprecedented step forward in the global effort to combat climate change.
With that impressive statistic in mind, I’ll hand the podium over to Todd Stern, who has about 20 minutes to answer your questions.
MR. STERN: Hello, everybody. Pleased to be here today. I’m just going to be very brief at the top and open it up for questions for you all.
Where we stand right now is – as you all know that Copenhagen meeting produced, in the end, a short document which is known as the Copenhagen Accord, we think a very important – short but important document that was produced very importantly through the intervention of leaders, a great number of leaders from countries there. It was, at the end of the day, not formally adopted as a decision of the – decision being a term of art – of the Conference of the Parties, but was supported by the overwhelming number of them.
The fact that it wasn’t formally adopted has led to a process since Copenhagen where countries essentially conveyed to the secretariat of the UN convention their interest in being part of it; the UN term is to associate itself with the accord. And in addition, the major countries, major economies have submitted their targets or actions that they plan to take to reduce emissions. So this is the developed countries and the major developing countries. That was supposed to happen by January 31st and it did.
We now have slightly less than a hundred countries that have indicated they want to be part of the accord, and my guess is there will be still some additional ones who indicate that. The accord itself, I think, is an important document for a number of reasons. It includes – it quantifies the objective of this whole exercise of the Framework Convention. The objective, as stated in the convention, is to – essentially to avoid dangerous climate change and the Copenhagen Accord quantifies that by talking about limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade. It includes a pledge by the major economies to submit their targets and actions. It includes important stuff on – important language on transparency, important provisions on financing, and on technology. So in – all in all, I think a very important step forward.
The – going forward this year, I think will be a combination of both of making elements of the accord operational as well as further discussions under the umbrella of the UN Framework Convention toward additional agreements in Mexico. So that’s kind of where things stand right now. I’m happy to take questions.
QUESTION: Sean Tannen with AFP. You alluded to this a little bit in your talk at the Center for American Progress —
MR. STERN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — the other week. The commitments by countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa aren’t necessarily unambiguous. How do you see that going forward, unless there’s a clear commitment by those emerging economies?
MR. STERN: Well, I think that that’s going to get clarified. I think that, first of all, they have all submitted their proposed actions and there’s nothing ambiguous about that. They have submitted the actions that they intend to take to reduce emissions. I think that’s a good thing. So far, I believe Brazil and South Africa have stated to the – have conveyed to the secretariat that they wish to be associated with the accord. And China and India have conveyed something which is not entirely clear. I think that’ll get clarified, though, is my guess over the course of the next few days.
There will be – the way this thing works is that the secretariat publishes a report on the COP, the Conference of the Parties. They do this every year when there’s a Conference of the Parties. After a couple of months, they publish a report, essentially, on the proceedings, what happened. And the report includes all of the decisions that were taken. One of those decisions was a decision to take note of this Copenhagen Accord. And so as part of that decision, the accord itself will be published. And on the front page of the accord, there will be a list of all the parties who have said we want to be part of this.
And so I think that that’s something that will presumably happen reasonably soon, and I would expect that all of the major countries will be part of it at that point.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly? But would there be a risk to the accord itself unless there is more clarity from these emerging economies?
MR. STERN: I think it’s important that the major countries be part of it, but I – again, I think that we have close to a hundred countries now. So I think that the accord is already kind of gathering steam.
Yes.
QUESTION: If India and China, turn out – don’t associate themselves with it, is there any possibility that the U.S. would pull out, essentially?
MR. STERN: No.
QUESTION: Not at all?
MR. STERN: No. I mean, I think that the U.S. is – we have put forward our own submission. It’s consistent with what President Obama announced back in November. So I don’t think it’s a question of the U.S. saying “Never mind.” I don’t think – that’s not the plan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Lalit Jha from Press Trust of India. Just a follow-up question. What you said is not clear about China’s and India’s proposals?
MR. STERN: The proposals are clear. This is a little bit confusing. I don’t want anybody to be confused. The proposals that they’ve all made with respect to “Here’s what we’re going to do,” perfectly clear. There is a second piece of this which is do you, quote “associate yourself with the accord,” and in effect, will you be one of those hundred-plus countries that are listed on the front page of the accord as having said “Yes, we want to be part of it.” That’s the piece that I’m talking about right now, and that’s – as I say, there’s just slightly less than a hundred countries that have said that. India and China have said something close to that, and I think the UN is just trying to make sure that they understand what the intention is.
QUESTION: Now my question about – India has distinctly announced that they will set up their own IPCC because they believe that the UN’s IPCC is not that realistic, that they are a bit confusing and it’s – they’re not reliable. What’s your opinion on that?
MR. STERN: Well, look. I think it’s a good thing for countries to have an active scientific effort. I don’t know what the details are. I don’t know what Minister Ramesh or others in India have in mind. But I think, obviously, the United States has all sorts of scientific work that we do through our various agencies of the U.S. Government. So I think that’s all a good thing.
I think the IPCC as an institution has made a very large contribution and I think it’s an important body that will continue and that is very representative of countries all over the world. So I don’t know what – I’m not familiar with the specifics of what India —
QUESTION: He was talking about – Minister Ramesh was talking about recent controversies about Himalayan glaciers.
MR. STERN: About what?
QUESTION: About Himalayan glaciers and the – some of the facts and figures in the IPCC report which has raised a lot of doubts.
MR. STERN: Right. Well, look, as I said, I think the IPCC is a very important body. I think it’s made a very important contribution. To the extent that there were any – that any errors appear in their lengthy report, I think that’s regrettable. But again, I’m not – I don’t have any – I’m not a scientist and I don’t have any considered view on the specifics. But I think the IPCC as an institution has been quite important and will continue to be important.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, actually? How much more difficult has your job been since the errors in the IPCC report came to light, both globally and –
MR. STERN: It was difficult already. (Laughter.) No, look, I think that the scientific underpinning for action on climate change, the fundamental science of climate change and the observed data, is quite overwhelming. I think that to the extent – and again, I make no comment one way or another about whether they’re mistakes – I just don’t know. But to the extent that there were any mistakes in the IPCC report, reports, assessments, or anywhere else, that’s regrettable. You don’t want there to be mistakes.
But what should not happen is that any individual mistakes, typos, whatever they might be, be taken to undermine the very fundamental record that exists from scientists all over the world and from observed data from all over the world that this is a quite serious and growing problem. So I think that that’s really the kind of underlying important point.
And nor should – and I think what you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find and say, look, there’s no climate change, it snowed last week in Washington, there’s no climate change. That kind of stuff is nonsense. And the exploiting of this or that mistake that might have occurred in some part of long reports that pull together a lot of scientific data, again, I think is – I think it needs to be seen for what it is, which is a deliberate attempt to undermine. The fundamentals haven’t changed.
QUESTION: Andy Quinn from Reuters. I was hoping you could talk a little bit after Copenhagen how you see the UN’s role in further negotiations about climate change and that of the Major Economies Forum. And do you have any word on when and where the next meeting of the MEF might be?
MR. STERN: Well, two things. I think the UN absolutely has an important role going forward. I think that there are obviously – anybody who was at or closely following Copenhagen can see that there are challenges with respect to managing a big process like that, particularly one with – where a small group of countries can block actions. That is certainly difficult, but it is – the UN has a special level of credibility and history in this and we support the UN process.
The Major Economies Forum, I think, was a very useful exercise last year, a useful forum, a useful body that we really picked up from the previous administration and then kind of remodeled. So we have every intention of continuing that this year. I am quite sure that we will have a meeting this spring. We haven’t set the exact date or the place yet, but I would anticipate that we will be working with our Major Economies Forum partners to set up a meeting in the relatively near term.
And I might say that in the fall we began a practice of inviting a few additional countries to participate who were important countries but not necessarily majors in terms of their economies. And I think that that was a useful process that we began in – I can’t remember if it was September or October, but we started it in the fall. And I would guess we’ll probably continue something like that as well.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) broaden the guest list even further?
MR. STERN: A little bit. A little bit, but not to a large extent.
Yes.
QUESTION: Sort of related to his question, is there any coordination between your office and the Trade Representative’s office, folks at Commerce, folks at Treasury, in trying to deal with some of the economic concerns that some countries might have about trying to limit their economic output that might have an impact on the rise in temperatures globally?
MR. STERN: Well, two things. We coordinate with everybody. I mean, this is not just a State Department exercise. It’s a government exercise. We – for starters, we coordinate very closely with the White House, obviously with the President but also with people in the NSC and the climate and energy office over there. And we coordinate a lot with Treasury and EPA and Energy and Commerce and other places. So this is a broad government effort where, of course, on the diplomatic side, State’s in the lead, but there’s a lot of coordination just in general.
With respect to the question of countries who need to play a role and who have concerns about that, we interact, we discuss those issues with the countries – with countries in that kind of a position a lot. I think that USTR is also an agency that we certainly do work with. Look, there’s kind of a basic underlying reality here, which is that countries in the sort of emerging market category of countries, which is really what you’re talking about, they have to be part of the solution in dealing with this problem.
If you only look at developed countries, you’re at about 40, maybe – somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of total emissions and shrinking. And if you’re trying to deal with the 80 or 85 percent of emissions and growing, you’ve got to bring in China and India and Brazil, other countries like that. You have to do it in a way that is mindful of their own needs for development, but those things can be reconciled and they have to be reconciled or else there’s no way to deal with the problem.
MR. TONER: Okay, just a couple more questions.
QUESTION: On the difference between associating with the accord and commitments for the accord –
MR. STERN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — Yvo de Boer earlier, a few weeks ago, said that there – that the January 31 was a soft deadline. Are – do you know what the number of countries is that have made commitments for the accord?
MR. STERN: Yeah. Well, I mean, I know that Yvo said that, but the reality is that the countries who were expected to make those commitments did so by January 31st. I think somebody might have been February 1st, but basically it was done by January 31st. And those countries are the developed – all developed countries, so U.S., Europe, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, et cetera; and the major developing countries, so that’s China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia. Korea and Mexico are kind of in a halfway house, but they’re still traditionally considered developing. And there are some additional countries. I don’t have them at the – at my fingertips. There’re some additional countries that would not necessarily be considered majors but who nonetheless did step forward and make their own commitments with respect to actions.
So that piece of it is basically, in terms of meeting the deadline, that got done. That’s done.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. STERN: So now we’re just in the world of what countries are going to be reflected as part of the Copenhagen Accord.
QUESTION: Okay. And in relation to that, what are the next steps in the accord process?
MR. STERN: Well, there’s —
QUESTION: — leading on to COP (inaudible)?
MR. STERN: Yes. So there were these two steps we’ve already just talked about, the making your commitments and the associating, which is – that part – not quite over yet. Beyond that, there are a number of elements in the accord that, by their terms, need further elaboration. So it calls for a global fund. All right, well, then you need to set up – set the fund up. You need to – there’s a structure, there’s mechanics, how the fund will work. It calls for technology mechanism. All right, what does it look like? Does it look this way or this way or how – what is it – what are the elements of the mechanism?
A very important provision about transparency, including with respect to developing countries, including with respect to actions they take on their own as opposed to just actions they take when they’re funded. Very important stuff there. And in paragraph five of the accord, it talks about further guidelines to spell out those transparency provisions. Okay, that needs to get done. So there are probably four or five elements of the accord that need further work, and I think that that – that those things need to be carried forward. The first piece of that that got announced was a high-level panel or group, advisory group, I think it’s called, on financing that Ban Ki-moon announced just Friday.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. STERN: That’s under – I think it’s paragraph nine of the accord that talks about setting up a high-level panel to do a study on potential sources of income toward realizing that goal of $100 billion by 2020. All right. So they’ve now announced that panel. I think there’s a couple of members from different countries, including ours, that haven’t been announced yet. But that’s underway and there’ll be other elements of that that I think as time goes on will get – will be – will get underway as well.
MR. TONER: Any more questions? Go ahead.
QUESTION: We’ve heard that several companies – BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar – dropped out of the Climate Action Partnership. I’m wondering if you can talk specifically about that, if you know about it. Is it a blow to that side of the equation? And more specifically, how do you feel that business is – I mean, do you think that there is some concern that business interest in this whole process is waning?
MR. STERN: I don’t know anything about that – about the specifics, so I’m not going to comment on that. I think – it’s interesting. I think that overall business interest and focus on this issue is growing gradually and that that will continue, because whatever the ups and downs of this process at any particular moment, there is only one direction that this process can go, which is in the direction of action to reduce emissions. I hope we get there – I very much hope we get there sooner rather than later and we will be doing everything we possibly can to advance that goal. But whether it’s sooner or later, it’s coming. Businesses get that. Businesses need to plan for not just – businesses don’t drive by looking right over the head of the car, they look down the road, and this is coming. So I think that that will grow.
Thank you.
Innovate and Enter / Participate & Launch!
The next Solar Decathlon will be held in Washington, D.C., in the fall of 2011, when once again teams from colleges and universities from around the world will gather to compete. The request for proposals (RFP), RFP amendments, and draft rules for the 2011 competition are available by clicking the link above.
2009 Competition: DOE Solar Decathlon: 2009 Final Results.
For three weeks in October 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy hosted the Solar Decathlon—a competition in which 20 teams of college and university students competed to design, build, and operate the most attractive, effective, and energy-efficient solar-powered house. The Solar Decathlon also enabled the public to observe the powerful combination of solar energy, energy efficiency, and the best in home design.
The dates of the 2009 event were:
The 10 Contests included the following:
The final results of the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2009 are presented below. The 2009 Solar Decathlon was held Oct. 9-18 on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and challenged 20 student teams to design, build, and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar-powered house.
The 2007 champions did it again! Team Germany focused on producing surplus energy by using the maximum overall building dimensions allowed, applying photovoltaics to every available surface, and pushing the envelope with new technologies. The team walked away with the Net Metering contest and performed well in several others, including Architecture, Lighting Design, Comfort Zone, and Hot Water. Demonstrating that they are true champions, members of Team Germany were extremely gracious in their victory and recognized the work of their peers.
Gable House was one of the first to be assembled and ran like clockwork the entire competition. The team set out to express its regional heritage and sought to create a synergy between old and new. Traditional techniques in homebuilding, along with great advances in technology, blended to create a house that performed exceptionally well in energy efficiency—as demonstrated by the team’s results in all the objective contests. Focused on performance, this team also achieved elegant simplicity in design.
A winning spirit guided this team throughout the 2009 competition. Ranking in the top three of nearly every contest, Team California also excelled in some of the most prestigious subjective contests. It finished first in both the Architecture and Communications contests, achieved second in Engineering, and tied for third in Market Viability. Beautiful in every respect, Refract House broke out of the box and masterfully executed the melding of interior and exterior spaces while offering a consistent and high-quality learning experience to visitors.
The panel of judges and jurors assembled to evaluate the 20 U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon 2009 teams and their houses is composed of individuals at the top of their professions. Renowned in their fields of study, they bring academic excellence and practical, in-the-field expertise to each of the 10 contests. Their involvement in the Solar Decathlon will help advance energy efficiency and renewable energy throughout the world.
Using objective and subjective measures to evaluate the team houses, the jurors assign points for every contest that determine each team’s overall score and standing.
Kevin Burke works closely with William McDonough to give form to the eco-effective design principles on an array of project types and scales at William McDonough + Partners. He served as co-designer on several of the projects that have become known as milestones in American sustainable design. His approach is driven by his keen interest in place-making through integrated design solutions. Burke currently manages the 40-person practice, which opened a second studio in San Francisco in 2006. He is a key design leader, heading teams on Fuller Theological Seminary’s Worship Center and Library, the American University School of International Service, and VMware Corporate Headquarters, among other projects. Burke lectures widely about eco-effective design and cradle-to-cradle thinking as the backdrop for the firm’s architecture and its work on guidelines, master plans, and other frameworks. Burke is a LEED Accredited Professional.
Jonathan Knowles is an assistant professor of architecture at the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD). He has been teaching at RISD since 2001 and was project director for RISD’s 2005 Solar Decathlon entry. He has initiated a pilot project with the Department of Engineering at Brown University to conduct research into new forms of thermal electric systems. Knowles has taught at the Parsons School of Design, Cornell University, and Columbia University. He is also a practicing architect and passive house consultant in New York City, where he is a partner at Briggs Knowles Studio. The work of the firm has been published in several venues, including the New York Times and Dwell magazine. He is currently overseeing the design and construction of two net-zero homes in New England. His degrees, a Bachelor of Architecture and Bachelor of Fine Arts, are from RISD.
Sarah Susanka is the leader of a movement that is redefining the American home and lifestyle. Through her “build better, not bigger” approach to residential design, she teaches that the sense of “home” we seek has almost nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality. She is the author of eight best-selling books, including The Not So Big House, Home by Design, and The Not So Big Life. In March 2009, Taunton Press published Not So Big Remodeling, in which Susanka shows readers how to remodel in a not so big way, making a house more functional, inspiring, and more sustainable. Her books have sold more than 1 million copies. Susanka is regularly tapped for her expertise by national media, including “The Today Show,” CNN, and The New York Times. In January, Builder magazine recognized Susanka as one of 30 innovators in housing over the past 30 years. She is a senior fellow of the Design Futures Council and resides in North Carolina.
Richard Bourne is in “semi-retirement” as a half-time manager at the Western Cooling Efficiency Center (WCEC) at UC Davis, where he is responsible for retailer affiliate relationships and major research projects to reduce the cost of large radiant floor cooling systems. Bourne has served as director of WCEC, principal of Davis Energy Group Inc., and owner and manager of Solar Concept Development Co. Bourne has been a registered mechanical engineer since 1978. He has been a member of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) since 1975 and served as a chairman on the Radiant Heating and Cooling Committee from 1988 to 1990. As part of his work, he has presented more than 150 special lectures, workshops, and technical papers on energy topics and has 20 United States patents.
David Click is an alumnus of the 2002 Solar Decathlon and the University of Virginia, where he earned his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees in electrical engineering. He then worked for three years at Solar Design Associates near Boston on residential and commercial projects, including a 600-kW system on a warehouse roof and the 120-kW photovoltaic systems installed at the San Francisco Giants’ AT&T Park. Now working for the Florida Solar Energy Center, he helps lead a week-long training course for aspiring solar contractors. He also serves as project support director, working with an affordable housing developer and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (among others) on solar power and energy efficiency projects throughout Florida. Click also serves as a U.S. Department of Energy Tiger Team lead for several Solar America projects, including the City of Orlando and two showcases. He and his wife, Barrie, are the proud owners of a new 5.4-kW grid-tied photovoltaic thermal system.
Ted Prythero is a principal in the Denver office of M-E Engineers, an international mechanical and electrical consulting engineering firm. Prior to M-E Engineers, he was a principal with Engineering Economics and a partner in ENSAR Group, a sustainability consulting firm. He has more than 30 years of experience in the design of HVAC systems, with an emphasis on energy conservation and applying innovative and alternative energy systems to buildings. Prythero also has extensive experience in energy management/control systems and energy analysis and has taught energy conservation seminars to design professionals. His interest has been working with other design team members to make more efficient envelopes and incorporate solar features into buildings. He has been involved in numerous exemplary energy-conserving buildings. He has received multiple awards, ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Innovation in Energy award to the American Council of Engineering Companies of Colorado’s Engineering Excellence award. Prythero obtained a Bachelor of Science in engineering at Purdue University.
James Ketter is the engineering manager for GF Development, an arm of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in Durango, Colorado. He has extensive management experience in commercial and residential planning, design, construction, and operations and is a staunch advocate for sustainable communities. His current work includes the Three Springs project in Durango, a 2,000-unit, mixed-use, sustainably constructed traditional neighborhood development project. Ketter earned a mechanical engineering degree from Ohio State University, is a registered professional engineer, a LEED Accredited Professional with the U.S. Green Building Council, and member of the American Solar Energy Society. Ketter was a founding board member of the Durango Discovery Museum, a planned science and energy museum showcasing energy past, present, and future to be housed in the world’s oldest-known surviving AC steam power plant.
Joyce Mason markets new home communities for Pardee Homes, one of the nation’s most prominent multi-regional builders. She developed Pardee’s LivingSmart® brand to promote energy and water savings, indoor air quality, and use of earth-friendly building materials. A member of the Building Industry Institute Advisory Board for California Green Builder, Mason earned The State of California Earth award for Pardee’s LivingSmart neighborhoods and habitat preservation in San Diego. Pardee Homes has received numerous sustainability awards, including the National Association of Home Builders’ Green Builder of the Year award, several Sustainable Community of the Year awards, and recognition from the U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and other local and regional agencies. She also devotes time to HomeAid. On its behalf, she coordinated display of a Pardee-built playhouse at the National Building Museum to teach children about green building.
Paul Waszink is a construction cost consultant who specializes in the development of independent cost opinions via personal-attention investigative scope verification, quantity surveying, cost analyses, and related services for real estate development projects. As part of his job, he develops project budgets and cost estimates; provides peer review of construction cost estimates; offers project management at the sub-consultant, pre-construction, and course-of-construction phases of a project; works as a party appraiser in insurance settlement disputes; and provides training for groups and agencies about project funding budgets, cost planning, and monitoring.
Nancy Clanton is founder and president of Clanton & Associates, a lighting design firm that specializes in sustainable design. She obtained her Bachelor of Science (in architectural engineering with an illumination emphasis) from the University of Colorado at Boulder and is a registered professional engineer. Clanton is chairperson of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America’s (IESNA’s) Outdoor Environmental Lighting Committee and the Mesopic Committee and is a past member of the boards of directors of the International Association of Lighting Designers and the IESNA. Clanton is currently a member of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Environmental Quality Technical Advisory Group. She was a topic editor for the IESNA Lighting Handbook, and her committee was responsible for the production of the IESNA Recommended Practice on Lighting for the Exterior Environment. Her firm has authored the lighting criteria for the Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria, the Colorado Department of Transportation Lighting Design Guide, and the exterior sections of California’s Title 24 2008 energy code.
Ron Kurtz has been with Randy Burkett Lighting Design since 1990. His responsibilities as a lighting designer and project manager include the development of conceptual design, which involves the determination of both aesthetic and technical requirements, the preparation of contract documents and specifications, and construction phase coordination and field observation. His lighting design experience includes three years with Grenald Associates Ltd. in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. Kurtz is an active member of the International Association of Lighting Designers, serves on the Sustainability Committee, and is a LEED Accredited Professional. He is also involved in the IESNA on local and national levels and participates on the Energy Management Committee. He is a member of ASHRAE’s 90.1 Energy Standards Committee and has been a speaker on a number of lighting topics at professional and educational conferences.
Naomi Miller is the principal of Naomi Miller Lighting Design in Troy, New York. Lighting quality, the aging eye, health effects of light, dark skies, sustainability, and energy efficiency are her passions. She has many years of experience working in different facets of the lighting industry but finds lighting to be an ever-advancing field with creative challenges. More than 30 lighting design awards hang on her wall. She earned an undergraduate degree in architecture from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Master of Science in lighting degree from Rensselaer. She chaired the IESNA Quality of the Visual Environment committee for eight years and was a principal member of the writing team for Light + Design: A Guide to Designing Quality Lighting for People and Buildings. She is a fellow of the IESNA, fellow of the International Association of Lighting Designers, and member of the Lighting Research Office’s Technical Advisory Committee.
Maureen McNulty manages D&R’s outreach on behalf of the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing, a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-administered program that works to speed the development and adoption of advanced building technologies. Before joining D&R, McNulty worked as an independent communications and marketing consultant and marketing director for an electronic communications firm. She also has six years of experience in program administration for an education association and several years as an account executive in public relations and marketing agencies. She holds a Master of Fine Arts in writing from George Mason University and a Bachelor of Art from Agnes Scott College.
As the higher education sector manager at the U.S. Green Building Council, Jaime Van Mourik guides colleges and universities through the green building planning process and the implementation of the LEED Green Building Rating System. In this role, she directs the development of tools and resources for the sector and maintains customer relations for the council’s portfolio program. Prior to joining the U.S. Green Building Council, Van Mourik worked as a project manager at GreenShape, a sustainable design consulting firm, assisting more than 30 projects pursuing LEED certification. From 2002 to 2007, she worked at the National Building Museum developing, implementing, and managing educational programs about the built environment for an adult audience. Van Mourik is an active member of the building industry community, serves on the American Institute of Architects Washington, D.C., Inter-School Design Competition Committee, and is an Associate American Institute of Architects member and LEED Accredited Professional. She holds a Bachelor of Architecture from Virginia Tech and a Master of Architectural History from the University of Virginia.
Alan Wickstrom is the president and CEO of BuildingOnline Inc., a Web site design and Internet marketing agency devoted to the residential and commercial building products industries. BuildingOnline designed and hosts more than 120 of the industry’s leading Web sites, offers a building industry search engine and Web site directory, and manages BuildingOnline’s eUpdate, a building industry newsfeed service. He has 20 years of business marketing experience in these industries as well as 14 years of Internet marketing and design experience. Wickstrom has a bachelor’s degree in marketing from National University, San Diego. He is an accomplished speaker on the Internet and in the building industry. Wickstrom is an active Rotarian, serves on the board of the Italian American Opera Foundation, and served as the foundation president of the South Orange County School of the Arts until June 2009.
The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Navy were at the Pentagon in January 2010, showing their commitment to going green. Secretaries Vilsack and Mabus signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the two departments to work together to develop biofuels.
In November of 2009- Rear Admiral Phil Cullom spoke plainly at the MIT Innovations Journal event co-organized by Bolton Hill Consulting at the National Academies of Science. The message was clear. The U.S. Navy has a long-standing commitment to the use of biofuels because it makes economic sense. The Navy is the largest consumer of biofuel in the United States. Rear Admiral Cullom controls a 21 Billion dollar budget. He attests that the Navy has used cutting edge clean technology for a long time to save money, increase access to domestic fuel sources and promote American innovation. The talk he gave at this event was riveting because not only is he interested in the topic- he is extremely well-educated (nuclear engineer & Harvard business graduate among other things), well spoken and highly committed to the use of biofuels in multiple contexts. Listen to him in his own words below.
Video provided by Allan Tone at ProVDN
Clean tech gets big piece of venture-capital funding – USATODAY.com.
| VENTURE FUNDING | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
More than $5.6 billion in venture-capital investment went to clean-tech firms — including solar, wind, energy efficiency, transportation and biofuels — last year, say preliminary data from market researcher Cleantech Group and finance firm Deloitte.
Total venture-capital investment has retreated to 2003 levels, but clean tech has reset only to 2007 levels, the Cleantech Group says. “It was a difficult year, but I see clean tech … as the best of the worst,” says Shawn Lesser, founder of finance firm Sustainable World Capital.
The money flow underscores that:
•Clean tech has muscle. In 2004, the sector accounted for about 3% of venture-capital investment. That expanded to about 25% in 2009. The sector last year, for the first time, received more private venture capital than any other sector, including software, Cleantech Group says.
•Efficiency and transportation are in. The top clean-tech recipient in 2009 was solar, which got 21% of it. But solar investment was down 64% from the previous year, while the transportation and energy-efficiency sectors had record years.
The drop for solar stems from several factors, including the big amounts of money needed to commercialize technologies, says Dallas Kachan, managing director of the Cleantech Group. Meanwhile, energy-efficiency firms — those concentrating on everything from lighting to green building materials — often need less money to bring products or services to market, may rely on more proven technologies and may pose less risk to investors. “They’re not reinventing the wheel,” Kachan says.
Last year, venture capital for transportation — for such things as electric cars and new battery technology — rose 47% to $1.1 billion. Investment in energy efficiency rose 39% to $1 billion.
•North America may be slipping. The region is still dominant for clean-tech venture capital, but it’s getting a smaller share than it used to. Last year, North America received 62% of clean-tech venture-capital dollars, down from 72% in 2008, the Cleantech Group says. Europe and Israel took in 29% of 2009 dollars, up from 22% in 2008. That Europe and Israel increased their share of venture-capital funding may reflect the desire for investors to pursue less risky deals in markets where clean tech is already more widely deployed, Lesser says.
By Juliet Eilperin and Anthony Faiola Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, December 17, 2009; 7:01 AMCOPENHAGEN — The United States on Thursday announced it would help build a $100 billion annual fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change, but said its commitment depended on whether the nations gathered here could reach a substantive pact that includes “transparency” on tracking emissions cuts.
In the absence of a comprehensive pact, Clinton said, the United States would take its long-term financial pledge off the table. She did not specify how much the U.S. would contribute to the fund if a substantive agreement was reached. The European Union has also committed to building a longterm, $100 billion fund, while Japan has committed $15 billion in short-term funding to poor countries over the next three years if an agreement is reached.
Clinton’s announcement could help break a logjam that has stymied the talks for days, since developing countries have insisted they need to know how the industrialized world will help them adapt to climate change and curb their own emissions before signing off on a deal.
The $100 billion annual fund endorsed by Clinton would help poorer countries switch to less environmentally harmful forms of energy production and prepare for the impacts of rising seas and warmer global temperatures. Clinton did not detail how much the U.S. would contribute to that fund. She said there were a number of financing options under consideration, but would not provide details.
“$100 billion is a lot,” Clinton said. “It can have tangible effects.”
Clinton, however, warned that a failure to reach agreement in Copenhagen — a deal has been anticipated Friday when leaders including President Obama enter the final stage of talks — would put that pledge in jeopardy. Officials from the United States and other developed countries have consistently said they cannot accept an agreement that does not include pledged emission reductions from major developing countries, as well as a method of verifying those cuts. Such language is essential to U.S. senators, who have yet to pass climate legislation and would have to ratify any future climate treaty.
via U.S. pledges billions; China says climate pact is doubtful – washingtonpost.com.
MIT Press Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate.
If you have any trouble playing the video here- then press HERE
|
|
Time 4 Change Reframing the Conversation on Energy & Climate.
Event Details:
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Time: 1:00 – 6:45PM (Event: 1-5:40PM; Reception: 5:45-6:45PM)
Place: The National Academy of Sciences, 2100 C Street, NW (21st and Constitution Avenue), Washington, DC 20001(Foggy Bottom Metro)
Cost: Free of charge – Register here
Event Description
The goal of this meeting is to contribute to reframing the conversation on energy and climate by illuminating opportunities inherent in the transition away from carbon intensity. The meeting will focus on how technologies already in use can be combined with common-sense policies and 21st century modes of organization to create jobs, advance innovation, and enhance international cooperation. The meeting will take place at the National Academy of Sciences and will engage leaders from business, government, and academia in a discussion of the societal possibilities inherent in the in the creation of climate solutions. The event is timed to take place two weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and coincides with the release of the Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate titled “Energy for Change.” Led by the Science Adviser to the President of the United States, John Holdren, and informed by a year-long project on energy & climate at the National Academy of Sciences, the meeting will be organized into a set of forward-looking conversations respectively emphasizing opportunities for business, for the United States, and for the global community of nations.
Featured speakers include:
As energy increasingly dominates the economy, a quiet little agency in Washington holds the responsibility for tracking the particles that conduct, fuse, blow, heat, combust and convert the earth, wind and water into the energy that makes our society run.
The man behind the quiet data-crunching enterprise is Richard Newell, a Duke University economist and energy enthusiast.
He sits in a glass-walled office a block off the National Mall, between the president who hired him and the congressional lawmakers who hammer his numbers into policy. He visits his wife and two young daughters in North Carolina every weekend, reads massive amounts of analysis and tries to know, always, the big picture about what’s going on in the world.
Newell took over Aug. 3 as the administrator for the Energy Information Administration. Utility companies make decisions about whether to build new power plants based in part on the EIA’s long-term projections of energy use. The office is responsible for dozens of daily, weekly and monthly reports on all aspects of energy.
It tracks how much energy comes from solar, geothermal and biomass sources. It follows the production and use of coal, natural gas and petroleum. It tracks greenhouse gas emissions.
Its work can shake financial markets and propel legislation.
It does all this, by law, in a nonpartisan, neutral fashion. The only political appointee is the director: Newell.
“Energy is a part of so many aspects of our daily lives, our economy,” Newell said in an interview in his Washington office. “It’s the car you drive. It’s when you turn the lights on, drive the kids to school.”
“Environmental issues are increasing in attention and importance over the last decade or two,” he said. “So I think there’s a lot of interest on the part of policymakers and society in how we meet our energy needs in a way that allowed the economy to keep running and addresses environmental concerns. I think we can do all that.”
A friendly man with wavy hair and a fashionable beard, Newell sports just enough gray to give the 44-year-old gravitas in the very serious town of Washington. When he smiles, which is often, his eyebrows shoot above his glasses, crinkling his forehead.
The work he does at the EIA, though, is very serious.
“They’re not trying to spin the facts,” said Ron Planting, an economist at the American Petroleum Institute, an advocacy group for the oil industry in Washington. “They’re trying to gather the best data available. From their data you can get a picture of what’s happening in U.S. energy consumption.”
via Tiny agency has big role in energy debate – KansasCity.com.
At the Washington DC Green Festival™, a joint project of Global Exchange and Green America, we’re celebrating what’s working in our communities—across the District, Maryland and Virginia—for people, for business and for the environment.
You’ll enjoy more than 125 renowned speakers and 350 green businesses (start your holiday shopping now!), great how-to workshops, green films, a Fair Trade pavilion, yoga classes, organic beer, delicious organic cuisine and live music.
Find out about DC environmental initiatives; and learn how neighbors, community nonprofits and city departments are working together to make their cities healthier places to live.
Dean Kamen’s Spectrum Technologies
Bolton Hill Consulting, Ltd. 