If utilities want to succeed during these transformative times, they will need to promote more women to board positions. That is the message offered in new report released last week by EY.
The U.S. National Climate Assessment report states bluntly that streets in coastal cities are flooding more readily, that hotter and drier weather in the West means earlier starts to wildfire seasons, and that every region of the nation already is seeing real effects of climate change.
On the heels of the EPA’s new carbon rules proposed by President Obama on June 2, I wanted to take a closer look at a potential disruptive technological breakthrough: taking CO2 waste streams and turning them into saleable, value-added feedstocks. Certainly, the deployment of renewables, energy efficiency, smart grid, and energy storage technologies offer some of the most cost-effective options for dramatically reducing emissions. But if you believe that fossil fuel power plants (along with other large-source emitters like steel and cement producers) will remain a part of our industrial ecosystem for some time to come, then capturing and utilizing C02 from these emitters is an important and critical piece of the carbon-management equation.
Under President Obama and the EPA's new carbon reduction plan, which is the first ever national standard on carbon reductions, New York is now required to cut its carbon emissions by 44 percent by 2030. The EPA’s new rule comes just over a month after Governor Cuomo and the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC)'s April 24, 2014, announceme
Google Inc. plans a deeper push into the $363.7 billion U.S. power-sales market by working on tools that help utilities deliver electricity to homes and businesses more efficiently, people with knowledge of the matter said.
The recent release of the proposed Clean Power Plan under EPA section 111(d) underscores the role of energy efficiency as our nation’s least-cost resource. Demand-side management rightfully earns its place as a critical part of a system-wide approach to reduce emissions 30 percent by 2030. McKinsey estimates the opportunity to eliminate more than $
Day 2 of the POWER-GEN Europe conference and exhibition, and its co-located show, Renewable Energy World Europe, hosted a joint plenary panel discussion exploring the theme of this year’s event “Navigating the power transition” in detail. Comprised of industry experts from around the world, the panel debated the importance of adaptation for the industry, the role that national and European governments should play in guiding the market, and the role of technology as being a catalyst for change.
Japan said the U.S.’s proposed cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions from its power plants is a bold step to tackle climate change.
In a history-making move for clean energy, the Obama administration today, for the first time, proposed a rule to restrict carbon dioxide on existing power plants.
With billions of dollars of prospective markets for renewable energy and energy efficiency in the federal government sector, I am astonished at how uncoordinated companies are in this area. As one who guides federal facility managers, as well as companies aspiring to enter the market, I have some first hand perspective.
In a surprising report released today by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, researchers looked at the impact of the two most common terms for human-induced climate warming—global warming and climate change—on Americans.
The authors found that the term “global warming” is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement and support for personal and national action than the term “climate change,” which is often favored by scientists.
Among other findings, the report—What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change—showed the term “global warming” appears to be associated with:
- Greater certainty that the phenomenon is happening, especially among men, Generation X (31-48) and liberals.
- Greater understanding that human activities are the primary cause among Independents.
- Greater understanding that there is a scientific consensus about the reality of the phenomenon among Independents and liberals.
- More intense worry about the issue, especially among men, Generation Y (18-30), Generation X, Democrats, liberals and moderates.
- A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women, the Greatest Generation (68+), African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, liberals and moderates.
- Higher issue priority ratings for action by the president and Congress, especially among women, Democrats, liberals and moderates.
- Greater willingness to join a campaign to convince elected officials to take action, especially among men, Generation X, liberals and moderates.
While for some in-the-know, the two phrases are often seen as synonymous, the report—which analyzed three separate studies—clearly shows that they mean different things to different Americans. The general public tends to favor the term “global warming”—and perhaps we should take note.
The need for climate mitigation seems to be growing more urgent by the day. Just this month, the Obama Administration released the National Climate Report which concluded that global warming is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, Center for Naval Analyses released its National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change report saying that climate change is a “catalyst for conflict” and University of California, Irvine conclusively stated that the West Antarctic glacier has melted past the point of no return and will inevitably raise sea levels by up to four feet.
Yet, the climate deniers still wield alarming influence. Big contenders with even bigger pocket books, like the Koch Brothers, are able to pump money into anti-climate campaigns, bills and agendas, drowning out the voices of scientists who continue to prove that climate change—or, global warming, rather—is real, caused in part by humans and happening right now.
Could the expression “climate change” be the culprit for the lack of action taken on the issue? Cognitive meaning can and does change, so perhaps with the continued use of “climate change,” it will come to acquire a similar meaning as “global warming” in the minds of Americans. But language choices can influence public policy. The terms we use to describe our world shape the way in which we see it. And, as with most things, the key to mobilizing the public is to appeal to emotions on a personal level, which as this study has shown, might be better conjured by a simple change of phrase.
Ohio can no longer be counted as one of the 29 U.S. states that is working to satisfy its renewable portfolio standard. Yesterday the Ohio general assembly approved a bill to freeze the standards for electricity efficiency and generation from renewable sources.
The Obama administration has taken a lot of heat for creating climate change rules that bypass Congress. But recent court decisions are bolstering the president’s clean air agenda – and they come at a crucial time.
As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares to release draft regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector on June 2nd, this week ENE released a report describing how the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) provides a proven, effective model for reducing power plant emissions.
For many, the decision to get out of fossil fuels is an easy one. It may be because it's the right thing to do, or because we see the risks of investing in businesses built around an unsustainable economic paradigm. This article is not about that decision; it's about what to do next.
Back in May, I had the opportunity to catch a presentation by Paul De Martini of the Newport Consulting Group and the California Institute of Technology, at a CleanTech OC smart grid event in Irvine, California. De Martini previously served as chief technology officer for Cisco’s Global Energy Networks Group, and also as vice president of Advanced
Ohio is debating the sharpest break from a three-decade campaign by 29 U.S. states to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by promoting power from renewable sources.
Texas both produces and consumes more energy than any state in the U.S. It controls one-quarter of U.S. proven oil reserves. Energy companies looking to grow or to establish a U.S. presence set up operations in Texas. The primary electricity transmission system in Texas is independent of the rest of the country (a long-time source of pride). The Electric Reliability Company of Texas, or ERCOT, is responsible for regulating the generation and supply of power to 85 percent of the state, except the extreme eastern and western portions.
Bracing for greenhouse-gas rules from the Obama administration, two industries are staking out different positions. Coal companies are pledging to sue. Electric utilities are ready to talk.
Does nuclear energy deserve a seat at the table alongside renewable energy technologies in weaning us off of fossil fuels and transitioning into a cleaner energy world? A new report published yesterday suggests not only will newer small modular reactor (SMR) technology be at least as expensive as larger reactors, it won't fit the needs of a more flexible grid system, and its development will siphon away funding from the truly renewable energy options that need it.