Gore’s efforts to make the inhabitants of our planet more aware of what fossil fuels and other man-made polluters are causing must have rubbed off on some people, as it has resulted in Gore being honored and awarded a number of acclaims and prizes, including an Academy Award in February, 2007, from the Hollywood film industry for his documentary film: An Inconvenient Truth, that paints a sobering a graphic picture of what is happening to this planet thanks to its human inhabitants.

This honor was followed a few months later with Gore and the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , jointly winning the 2007  Nobel Peace Prize. Gore was also honored in Israel less than a year later, in July 2008, with an award from the Dan David Foundation for alerting the world to the dangers of overuse of fossil fuels.

So as it has worked out, it appears that the best thing that has happened to the former Vice President was actually losing the Presidency; for had he become the 43^rd US President, it’s most likely that Gore would not have become so involved with his environmental crusades as he simply would have been too busy dealing with the aftermath of the “9-11 terror attacks” which would have taken place during his “watch”.

Since the filming and release of his documentary movie, and being awarded the Nobel Prize, a lot of money has come Al Gore’s way, with a great deal of it going to a foundation he set up, known as the Alliance for Climate Protection , founded in 2006, and today has more than 5 million members worldwide. The New York Times says that his green stocks are up and Gore’s made a killing from clean tech investments.

Beyond investment interests, his foundation works with a number of affiliate organizations to find solutions to the problems of climate change and global warming in ways that “diversifies and strengthens the global network of concerned individuals who want to take action now on climate issues”.

Just who is against Mr. Gore and what he is trying to do to save the planet? A lot of  business interests and organizations, for one, who are connected to the fossil fuel industries (oil companies in particular), and who have hired a large group to research scientists to try to disprove Gore’s theories that it is petroleum, coal, and other fossil fuels (including natural gas, by the way) that many say are greatly responsible for the present state of the world’s environment.

For Gore’s part, these allegations of his profiteering from his environmental crusades haven’t affected him that much, since he considers the matter of global warming “not as a political issue but as a moral, ethical, and spiritual one”.

Gore himself is a religious man, belonging to the Southern Baptist Church. He was presented with the Baptist of the Year Award in January 2008, for his efforts on behalf of the environment.

Mr. Gore may never have gotten to occupy the Oval Office (except during a skit he was involved in for an episode of Saturday Night Live); but it now appears that he wound up being a bigger winner by losing the Presidency. And taking everything that has happened to him into account since the events of November/December 2000, he has come out much better than that “other guy” who did sit there for 8 years, critics et al.

What do you think? Should Gore profit from the environment?

Article by Maurice Picow appearing courtesy of Green Prophet

[photo credit: via Baptist Press]

Related posts:

• Videos: Clean Tech to Address Triple Threats, Says Al Gore
• US Chamber of Commerce Wants A Global Warming Trial
• Rising Use of Refrigerants Poses Severe Global Warming Threat
• The Clean Coal Conundrum
• Giant Carbon Clock Unveiled in Center of New York City

Ocean Power Technologies will begin construction of the 19-megawatt project in the waters off Victoria in 2010. The project will provide enough electricity to power 10,000 homes.

Wave technology uses buoys riding up and down on waves to drive an electrical generator, and then sends the power ashore via underwater cable.

The project is part of a larger $218 million government investment in renewable energy that officials say will help Australia meet its goal of generating 20 percent of its electricity demands with renewable sources by 2020.

The other projects receiving government funds include two geothermal projects and a mini-grid that coordinates wind, solar, biodiesel and storage technologies.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: hippolyte photography]

Related posts:

• Australia Introduces Plan To Build World’s Largest Solar Plant
• Heat Wave Demonstrates Limitations to Wind Power
• First Solar Announces Major Solar Project for Mojave Desert
• Go First Solar, Go First Solar, … Go!!!
• Australian Parliament Adopts 20 Percent Renewables Standard By 2020

Featuring several clean tech experts hailing from Chevron Energy Service (CES), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), NASA and other small business sectors, the conference will discuss the obstacles and business opportunities faced in the emerging “smart grid” industry.

Following President Obama’s announcement of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Smart Grid Investment Grant awards totaling $3.4 billion on October 27, 2009, which will drive the development and deployment of the “smart grid”, this conference will discuss the possible investment opportunities for the U.S. and VC companies, both in the domestic and international “smart grid” arena, focusing on the small-medium enterprises.

The Global Smart Energy — Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities conference will highlight the need for changes in the energy sector in order to keep up with the anticipated energy renovations. There are still plenty of technology research and development needed to meet the demands of the future electric power grid.

The conference will also discuss the latest news in renewable energy development in transportation, including using wind and solar energy in electric vehicles. The conference will further cover the emergence of “Micro Grids” and how they power their respective communities and save energy by selling back the excess to their energy utility, as well as discussing the efficiencies that will come from “Micro Grids” and how they promote cooperation to maintain a mutual and beneficial financial relationship.

Register here for this event. CleanTechies is proud to be official media partner for this event.

Be sure to check out other Clean Tech events & conferences in the CleanTechies Events Calendar!

Related posts:

• The Networked Grid — A Greentech Media Conference on the Smart Grid
• High Tech Greens the Internet: Net Neutrality and the Smart Grid
• Green Building, Water, Energy, Clean Tech: Where Are We Going?
• Solarthon 2009 — Want to Learn How to Install Solar?
• IBM and Trilliant Team to Simplify Smart Grid

The Philippine government plans to approve 19 new contracts to develop the nation’s massive geothermal energy resources in the next five months.

A top energy official said financial incentives for the development of renewable energy projects could attract more than $2.5 billion in private dollars from domestic and international companies.

“Incentives for renewable projects are giving geothermal development a much needed boost,” Alejandro Oanes, the Phllippine Energy Department’s division chief for geothermal energy, said.

The Philippines is already the world’s second-largest producer of geothermal energy. In fact, for more than three decades the nation has tapped into its remarkable geothermal resources, which are the result of volcanic pressures caused by the movement of the Philippine tectonic plate beneath the Eurasian plate.

With about 2,000 megawatts of installed capacity, geothermal energy accounted for 17 percent of the nation’s total power output in 2008. The 19 new projects could add another 620 megawatts of power.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: penmanila]

Related posts:

• New geothermal heat extraction process to deliver clean power generation
• Ormat to build 330 MW geothermal plant in Indonesia
• AltaRock Energy Geothermal Project in California Suspended
• Turkey Is Getting Ready To Harvest Its Renewable Energy Potential
• Turkey’s Alternative Energy Potential Needs to Get Unblocked

Can global warming be mitigated by a technological fix such as injecting light-blocking particles into the atmosphere or chemically “scrubbing” excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere? Department of Global Ecology scientist Ken Caldeira addressed this question in his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology in a hearing titled “Geoengineering: Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention” on November 5, 2009.

Caldeira testified that climate change poses a real risk to Americans and that the surest way to reduce this risk is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. But other options, such as geoengineering approaches, may also cost-effectively contribute to risk reduction in certain circumstances.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) approaches seek to reduce the amount of climate change by reflecting some of the sun’s warming rays back to space. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) approaches seek to reduce the amount of climate change and ocean acidification by removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The most promising SRM proposals appear to be inexpensive, can be deployed rapidly, and can cause the Earth to cool quickly. But they do not address the root causes of our climate problem or the problem of ocean acidification. Examples of SRM include injecting particles into the atmosphere or whitening clouds over the ocean to reflect incoming solar radiation. While SRM approaches may reduce overall climate risk, they may also introduce additional environmental and political risk.

The most promising CDR approaches appear to be expensive (relative to SRM, but perhaps competitive to reducing emissions) and take a long time before they could cool the Earth. However, they address the root cause of the problem — excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Examples include biological approaches such as planting forests and chemical approaches that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or from emissions sources and store it underground.

Neither SRM nor CDR would be a climate cure-all, however.

“The best, surest, and clearest way to reduce environmental risk associated with greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Caldeira in his written testimony. “If you take the risk of climate damage seriously, you want to take action to diminish risk by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but you would not want to limit yourself to only one risk-reduction approach.”

Article by Roger Greenway appearing courtesy of ENN

[photo credit: ozgurmulazimoglu]

Related posts:

• Geoengineering the Planet: The Possibilities and the Pitfalls
• US Chamber of Commerce Wants A Global Warming Trial
• Global Warming Could Be Slowed With Three Geo-Engineering Ideas
• Rising Use of Refrigerants Poses Severe Global Warming Threat
• Giant Carbon Clock Unveiled in Center of New York City

These articles are meant as alarm bells to policy makers in Washington, warnings that the current state of rail is both a national embarrassment and a detriment to the quality of life of its citizens.

Policy makers are not the only audience for these pieces. The series will also touch on why good public transportation is not a popular topic for average Americans, despite its fundamental importance in providing a vital freedom: the freedom of movement. Only progressives stump for high speed rail and they are in the minority. A poll conducted in 2008 showed that 60% of Americans consider themselves “conservative”.  Millions of these conservatives are the people who do not believe in supporting quality public transportation, but paradoxically use the words freedom and liberty in every topic of debate.  This will be addressed.

There are two requisites necessary for building such infrastructure:

1.) The money – Check. This country is rich…really, really rich. The US is richer than Japan, richer than France, richer than any nation, or any combination of nations, on the Earth. Money is there and can be redirected from wasteful expenditures such as war and corporate subsidies to something with more ROE for the voter, such as building mass transit and alternative energy infrastructure.

2.) The will to do so – Not there yet. For the past few decades freedom of movement has been pegged to the automobile. The turn of the last century was a time when municipalities where concentrating on destroying mass transit rather than expanding and improving metro networks. The urges of political leaders to gut mass transit to keep areas segregated or distort the transportation market towards a car based paradigm are gradually fading. Demographics and the critical mass of congestion are chipping away at these obstacles.

One factor that is stoking the political will to improve mass transit is that car ownership is becoming a large burden in this recession. Many car owners sacrifice a large chunk of their earnings monthly to keep their cars from being repossessed, full of gas and insured. A person of modest means can be severely set back by a car break down or accident that can suck hundreds or thousands of dollars out of a working class person’s wallet. As economic pressure increases, so will the calls for better public transportation.

Mass transit is in its dark ages in the US. Let us look abroad in order to usher in a transportation Renaissance.

[photo credit: clappstar]

Related posts:

• High Speed Rail – 12 Corridors to be Stimulated
• US High Speed Rail: The Empire Corridor — Uplift For NYC Mass Transit
• Planning High Speed Rail Line For 17 Years: The Pacific Northwest
• High Speed Rail Line Gets Federal Funding: Los Angeles to Las Vegas
• Hypocritical Southern Politicians Fighting High Speed Rail & ARRA Money

The European Space Agency (ESA) has launched a 315 million Euro ($465 Million) satellite that will monitor soil moisture, plant growth, and the salt content of sea water, all of which will be useful in tracking environmental changes as the planet warms.

The satellite, called SMOS — Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity — has the capacity to measure the water content of soil across the planet every three days to a depth of seven feet, enabling it not only to gauge surface water sources but also to monitor photosynthesis and plant growth. The data also will be valuable to scientists interested in forecasting drought and flood risk.

The SMOS satellite also will measure the salt content of ocean waters, crucial information in not only tracking an increase in freshwater in oceans from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also valuable in understanding global ocean circulation patterns, which are partially driven by water temperature and salinity.

The satellite will collect the data using a variety of technologies, including microwave radiation.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo: ESA - S. Corvaja, 2009]

Related posts:

• GRACE Satellites Show Depletion of Indian Groundwater Due to Irrigation
• Solar Thermal Energy – cheaper & easier than Photovoltaics
• Drilling Chemicals Found In Drinking Water Near Natural Gas Sites
• Solar Power from Space: Moving Beyond Science Fiction
• EPA Aims to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The report shows that in 2005 Americans used 410 billion gallons per day, slightly less than in 2000. The declines are attributed to the increased use of more efficient irrigation systems and alternative technologies at power plants. Water withdrawals for public supply have increased steadily since 1950 — when USGS began the series of five-year trend reports — along with the population that depends on these supplies.

Nearly half (49 percent) of the 410 billion gallons per day used by Americans was for producing electricity at thermoelectric power plants. Irrigation accounted for 31 percent and public supply 11 percent of the total. The remaining 9 percent of the water was for self-supplied industrial, livestock, aquaculture, mining and rural domestic uses.

“Because electricity generation and irrigation together accounted for a massive 80 percent of our water use in 2005, the improvements in efficiency and technology give us hope for the future,” Castle said.

The report also underscores the importance of recognizing the limits of the drinking water supplies on which our growing population depends. While public-supply withdrawals have continued to increase overall, per capita use has decreased in many States during recent decades.

The largest uses of fresh surface water were for power generation and irrigation, and the states with the largest fresh surface-water uses were California, Texas, Idaho and Illinois. The largest use of fresh groundwater was irrigation, and the states with the largest fresh groundwater uses were California, Texas, Nebraska and Arkansas.

The average amount of water withdrawn to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity in the United States has decreased steadily from 1950 to 2005. This change is attributable to an increase in the number of power plants that use alternatives to once-through cooling.

The full report is available here.

Article by Roger Greenway appearing courtesy of ENN

Related posts:

• Holy water: Israel leading the way from the Levant
• Water issues: Green sub searches for jobs and squid in California
• Details of Boxer-Kerry Draft Cap-and-Trade Bill
• Drilling Chemicals Found In Drinking Water Near Natural Gas Sites
• What Water Crisis? The Impending Problem

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister for climate and energy, who is hosting the Copenhagen meeting, expressed the hopes and frustrations of European Union members when she told delegates, “We have gotten used to the fact in World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the fight against terror, that the world could count on the U.S. to deliver on huge challenges,” she said. “I believe they have to deliver on this challenge. And if we don’t reach agreement in Copenhagen, who will lose the most? One of the most defined losers is American business.”

The Obama administration has declined to commit to a firm target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a certain date, saying they cannot make a commitment until Congress — which is now considering major climate legislation — passes a bill. That stance does not sit well with many in Europe, who say that unless the U.S. plays a major role in Copenhagen a treaty is unlikely to be signed.

Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister in Sweden who represented the European Union at a news conference on Monday, noted that the EU has committed to reducing emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 85 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Last week, the EU formally calculated that it would cost $110 billion Euros ($150 billion) annually to help the developing world achieve reductions of similar magnitude and make the transition to a clean energy economy. The EU estimated that 22 billion to 50 billion Euros of this amount would come from public funds, and let it be known that its share would be 3 to 22 billion Euros.

The obvious implication of Carlgren’s message was, where is the United States?

“The EU is more than ever fully prepared to reach a deal,” said Carlgren, who then quoted a famous line from an American movie on the Apollo space program. “Failure is not an option.”

Yvo de Boer — who is overseeing the negotiations as executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — also seemed to wag a finger.

“There is quite some ground to cover,” he said. “Adaptation, technology, mitigation, finance. We must deliver substantial reductions. We cannot wait any longer. Do any of you believe it will be easier next year or the year after? You know it is not going to get any easier… Copenhagen must open the door to the common good and close the door to human disaster. Barcelona is essential to putting the architecture in place.”

Many observers have recently been pessimistic that a climate treaty can be signed in Copenhagen, but some delegates in Barcelona said there is still time to set the stage for success in Copenhagen.

“This is the moment of truth when the world decides whether it is committed to solving climate change or just playing theater,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Initiative. “We’ve been dismayed by statements that there is too little time left. We insist that we have the time to develop a binding outcome, to achieve emissions reductions, to show action on developing countries, finance, and institutions. We have the public will.”

At a news conference, Jonathan Pershing — the U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change — pushed back against criticism of the United States. He said “development of a domestic number [on U.S. emissions targets] is under way and we are actively working with the Congress.” Pershing cautioned against deciding “how blame is apportioned. That is not a constructive thing. We think we can get there. The constructive thing is to push forward on an agreement.”

A carbon cap-and-trade bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions and place a price on carbon has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and a similar bill is now being debated by the Senate. Both bills commit to smaller greenhouse gas reductions than the EU.

“All countries are making their own choices about how they do their negotiation,” Pershing said.

Author Keith Schneider is director of media and communications for the U.S. Climate Action Network.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: Greenpeace]

Related posts:

• Copenhagen Climate Summit: Re-Think Expectations & Share Technologies
• Global CO2 Emissions Rose by Nearly 2 Percent in 2008
• Cap-and-Trade or Trade War: Obama Wants Tariff Out of Climate Bill
• Copenhagen Climate Talks: US Energy Secretary Chu Urges Realistic Goals
• More Optimism About Pre-Copenhagen Climate Progress

Since the project was first announced in July, the DII has gained support from a wide variety of political and governmental institutions in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

The DDI believes it can deliver solar power to Europe as early as 2015. It aims to provide 15% of Europe’s electricity by 2050 or earlier via power lines stretching across the desert and Mediterranean Sea.

The solar technology involved is known as concentrated solar power, (CSP) which uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays on a fluid container. The super-heated liquid then drives turbines to generate electricity.

The technology is not new, but it is the scale of the Desertec initiative which is a first, along with plans to connect North Africa to Europe with new high voltage direct current cables which transport electricity over great distances with little energy loss.

Article by Vanessa L. Bourlier appearing courtesy of ENN

Related posts:

• Desertec Project – a sound alternative to Russian gas pipelines?
• New CleanTechies Bookstore: find books, read reviews & order online
• Siemens to Buy Solel Solar Systems for $418 Million
• The Networked Grid — A Greentech Media Conference on the Smart Grid
• Ceylan Oney