Tag Archives: solar panels

Dungeness crabs threatened by, you guessed it, climate change

Dungeness crabs threatened by, you guessed it, climate change

By on May 25, 2016

Cross-posted from

Climate CentralShare

When it comes to American culinary institutions, the Dungeness crabs that are hauled ashore from California to Washington state every winter season are the crustacean equivalents of apple pie.

The bountiful crab meat is a holiday staple in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. When crabbing was suspended in the fall by an algae outbreak, journalists flocked to docks to produce lead news stories — just as they did when crabbing was restricted following a 2007 oil spill.

Research published this month could give a crab connoisseur a case of acid reflux.

Dungeness crabs for sale in Seattle.

erikzen

Scientists reported in the journal Marine Biology that ocean acidification, which is caused when carbon dioxide pollution dissolves into oceans, can kill and stunt young crabs, potentially jeopardizing whole populations.

“It’s something that’s projected into the future, but you don’t want to wait until a crisis,” John Mellor, a Dungeness crab fishermen who docks his boat in San Francisco, said during an interview last week in Washington, D.C., where he was meeting with lawmakers and others. “I’m here to try to convince people to give money for research.”

Scientists grew eggs and larvae from Puget Sound crabs in water containing pH resembling current and future conditions. They reported that more acidic seawater slowed the development of embryos and larvae and caused an “appreciable” number of larvae to die.

Ocean acidification is caused by carbon dioxide pollution — the same pollutant from fuel burning and deforestation that changes the climate. After carbon dioxide dissolves into seawater, it undergoes chemical reactions that change the pH and remove chemicals needed by corals, shellfish, and other creatures to produce rigid body parts.

West Coast waters are more prone to acidification than other regions. As the threat of acidifying waters weighs on the minds of crabbers, those who grow shellfish are already being directly affected. The Pacific Northwest’s oyster growing industry has been experiencing substantial losses of young shellfish linked to acidification since 2005.

“The really tough situation with the shellfish industry on the West Coast was the first major alarm bell,” said Jeff Watters, director of government relations at the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy. “That was the first moment where you literally had an industry who said, ‘Holy cow, this could shut us down.’”

Seth Miller, a Smithsonian Environmental Research Center scientist who wasn’t involved with the new study, said it added Dungeness crabs to the “long list of crustaceans and other invertebrates that will likely be negatively impacted” by ocean acidification during their larval stages.

“If Dungeness larvae develop slowly under acidified conditions, they’re likely going to struggle even more when you layer on other climate-related stressors like rising temperatures,” Miller said.

Miller said the research provides a “first look” at how acidification could affect crab populations. Scientists don’t know whether acidification is affecting crab populations already — nor do they precisely know how it could affect them in the future.

Dungeness crabs caught off California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

“We don’t have any direct evidence that they’re currently being affected, except that in some places we see a decreased survival under conditions that currently exist in some places,” said Paul McElhany, a NOAA ecologist who participated in the new study.

“We’re completely into new territory,” McElhany said. “Carbon dioxide has never changed this rapidly as far as we can tell.”

The West Coast’s crab population is a large one, occupying vast territory in the Pacific Ocean, raising hopes that it may harbor enough genetic variety to help it withstand environmental tumult, such as acidification. But how resilient it will actually be remains unknown.

“We’re only able to do experiments on a few life stages for a certain amount of time,” McElhany said. “So the question of the role that diversity might play in potential evolutionary response — that’s something that’s really just unknown at the moment.”

The coastal Washington state district of Rep. Derek Kilmer, a Democrat, contains thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on shellfish. He has introduced legislation designed to spur more research through federal grants and innovation prizes.

“I think there’s a real concern that, as you see changing ocean chemistry, that that’s a threat to their livelihood,” Kilmer said. “We’re trying to shine a bright light on the problem.”

Further research could help determine whether the crabs could evolve quickly enough or learn to adapt to changing pH concentrations. Such research may provide clues as to whether anything could be done to help crabs withstand acidification — apart from drastically curbing fossil fuel burning and deforestation, which is the goal of a new United Nations climate change treaty.

“This bill is not going to solve all the world’s problems,” Kilmer said. “To me, this is one of many things that have to happen.”

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site:

Dungeness crabs threatened by, you guessed it, climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, Smith's, solar, solar panels, Springer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dungeness crabs threatened by, you guessed it, climate change

You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

By on May 24, 2016Share

Along with a good chunk of the environmental space, Grist is celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the release of An Inconvenient Truth, the Oscar-winning documentary that dragged climate change in front of the eyeballs of millions. (Check out our complete oral history of the film and interviews with the activists, politicians, and artists it influenced.)

Perhaps you’re in celebration mode, too, and have re-watched the documentary in all its early-2000s Keynote glory. (If not, you can for free today!) Perhaps you’re feeling inspired. Stand tall! Sub out that incandescent sack of filaments for a lovely compact fluorescent lamp! You’re an environmentalist!

Now wipe your brow with a recyclable, grab an armload of in-season fruit, and binge watch these classic environmental docs next.


Food, Inc.

From Participant Media (the same folks that produced An Inconvenient Truth), Food, Inc. tells the story of our utterly zany industrial food system. After watching, this author stopped eating fast food for good (though, to be honest, not for lack of desire). Watch: Netflix.

Gasland

Josh Fox’s documentary on hydraulic fracturing helped launch the anti-fracking movement. A true conversation about climate change isn’t “possible without the awareness An Inconvenient Truth brought,” he told Grist, but here’s a conversation-starter, by way of the energy system. Watch: Netflix.

Chasing Ice

Photographer James Balog traveled to the Arctic to capture photos of dramatically receding — and in some cases, disappearing — ice. If you weren’t already convinced climate change is serious, these glaciers beg to differ. Watch: Netflix.

This Changes Everything

When Naomi Klein published This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate in 2014, she pointed to climate change as an opportunity to rework our entire economic system. But what about the people in that system? The film project of the same name is, according to director Avi Lewis, “a portrait of community struggle around the world on the front lines of fossil fuel extraction and the climate crisis.”

For the optimal dose of anger and action, don’t sub the book out for the movie: Soak ’em both in back-to-back. Watch: iTunes, Amazon.

Under the Dome

China has an air pollution problem. In Under the Dome, that problem is laid out with pressing slideshow wizardry. Remind you of another environmental movie? Deborah Seligsohn, former principal adviser to the World Resources Institute’s China energy and climate program, points to the documentary as An Inconvenient Truth’s most immediate descendent. “In four days, it had 250 million views on the web. That’s the influence,” she told Grist. Watch: YouTube (below!).

Catching the Sun

Catching the Sun confronts the big questions imposed by a burgeoning global solar industry. Is a 100-percent solar-powered world achievable? And if so, who stands to benefit? Director Shalini Kantayya has called mainstream environmentalism “a thing for the privileged.” As she told Grist, “If you have extra money, you can put solar panels on your home or pay for organic food.”

The documentary is Kantayya’s take on where environmentalism should be heading. Spoiler alert: It’s a story of hope, not doom. Watch: Netflix.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued: 

You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, LAI, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Sprout, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You’ve geeked out over “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watch these next.

Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

By on May 13, 2016 6:00 amShare

Podcasts are cool. Government agencies, generally speaking, are not. What happens when you mix the two together?

Judging by Episode 1 of the Department of Energy’s new podcast, Direct Current, the result is surprisingly charming — and not at all like listening to an audio version of the congressional yawn that is C-SPAN.

The episode (listen above) dives into rooftop solar and problems that arise after people install rooftop panels. It contains moments of levity, too, like a spoof of a familiar public radio show (with host “Ira Fiberglass” hosting This American Lightbulb), and an off-the-wall story about Don Quixote discovering a windmill and mistaking it for a giant.

The Verge described this podcast as coming “from out of nowhere” — and granted, when you think of up-and-coming podcast creators, the Department of Energy isn’t a prime suspect. But maybe we shouldn’t be totally surprised that in the post-Serial world, a decade after podcasts became popular, the government is finally catching up. The Department of Energy’s podcast represents a government agency’s attempt to venture outside its jargon-laden domain into a more approachable realm, one in which actual human beings live, listen, and learn.

In the era of thumb-scrolling through Facebook, podcasts are seen as a return to intimacy: a more theatrical medium that allows listeners to engage more slowly and deeply with what’s being said. Any subject is fair game, from concrete to rhino hunters. And now, courtesy of the government, rooftop solar panels.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View this article: 

Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hey, energy geeks, there’s now a podcast just for you

The story behind Prince’s low-profile generosity to green causes

The story behind Prince’s low-profile generosity to green causes

By on Apr 26, 2016Share

In the outpouring of media coverage after Prince’s death at the age of 57 last week, fans around the globe began to learn more about the notoriously private star — including that he gave away a lot of money. Van Jones — the activist, author, former Obama administration official, and current CNN commentator — revealed that Prince had secretly funded causes from public radio to Black Lives Matter to the Harlem Children’s Zone. He also conceived of #YesWeCode, an initiative to train black kids for work in tech. And he supported Green For All, a group working to fight climate change and bring green jobs to underprivileged populations. Jones is in the leadership of the latter two organizations.

“I was an Oakland activist giving speeches about the need for green jobs,” Jones told me over the phone, recalling how he first came into contact with the musician 10 years ago. “Prince heard me in the media and sent a $50,000 check to support the work I was doing. But he did all his giving completely anonymously, so I sent the check back. You never know when someone is trying to set you up — it could have been from Chevron or from a drug dealer or whatever. So then he sent the check back and I sent it back again, and then he sent it back and then I sent it back, until finally a representative called and said, ‘Will you please accept this check? I won’t tell you who it is from, but the guy’s favorite color is purple.’ I said, ‘Well, now you have a different problem: I’m not gonna cash this check, I’m gonna frame it.’”

Soon after, Prince reached out to Jones, and the two became friends — a friendship that would last until his death. Jones’ role in Prince’s life was, he says, as “his lead guitarist for social impact, for lack of a better term.” Jones helped distribute Prince’s resources when he didn’t want the attention, including providing solar panels for families in Oakland. The families never knew who their benefactor was.

As a Jehovah’s Witness, Prince wasn’t permitted to advertise his good works. But even without his spiritual tradition, Jones says Prince would have been modest about his giving. “He thought it was in poor taste for these celebrities to get millions of dollars and then write a check and have their publicists all over the media bragging about it,” Jones said. “He was like, ‘This is ridiculous. We get enough attention. We’re celebrities.’”

Jones says that what Prince really cared about was humanity. “He cared about life and love and freedom,” Jones says. “His politics were not red. They were not blue. They were purple. He had a mind that let him see answers — musically, spiritually, even politically. Rather than argue about global warming, he said, ‘Let’s help kids put up solar panels.’”

It’s clear in conversation that Jones deeply mourns the loss of his friend. When asked what he will miss most, he takes a long pause, so long I think for a moment that the line has gone dead.

“Everybody will tell you about the songs, but the genius didn’t stop when he walked out of the studio,” Jones says. “He was so hilariously, ridiculously funny. He was Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Kevin Hart–level funny. Dave Chapelle is probably funnier, but he’s the only one. Everybody else, Prince could have eaten their lunch, and half the time with no curse words. That’s irreplaceable. You can’t find that on YouTube or iTunes.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read More:  

The story behind Prince’s low-profile generosity to green causes

Posted in alo, Anchor, Bragg, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The story behind Prince’s low-profile generosity to green causes

John Kerry tugs at heartstrings at the Paris signing

John Kerry tugs at heartstrings at the Paris signing

By on Apr 22, 2016commentsShare

Secretary of State John Kerry, ever the diplomat, sure knows how to melt our cold hearts on Earth Day. Representatives from 175 countries marked the occasion with a formal signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement at the United Nations. In an event featuring a sea of green ties, Kerry made a different kind of symbolic statement, holding his 2-year-old granddaughter Isabelle as he signed the agreement.

The ceremony is only a first step to seeing the Paris agreement enter into force. Fifty-five countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions still need to ratify the agreement, which the U.S. and China (the two biggest emitters) plan on doing this year. Even once it’s ratified, there’s a lot of work left to be done. Top U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern told Grist in an interview, “the most important thing is what countries do nationally” to make their needed emissions cuts. 

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source article – 

John Kerry tugs at heartstrings at the Paris signing

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, ONA, organic, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Kerry tugs at heartstrings at the Paris signing

Unpacking climate change’s $2.5 trillion impact

Unpacking climate change’s $2.5 trillion impact

By on 5 Apr 2016commentsShare

Climate change is all about the Benjamins. Sign as many international climate agreements as you want, you’ve still got to scrounge up about $16.5 trillion for all those solar panels and seawalls.

But that’s just the first row on the climate change balance sheet. Not only does the world have to front a huge amount of money to solve the climate crisis, it’s putting trillions more at risk if it doesn’t — trillions that should be sitting in your pension or retirement fund.

A new study, published on Monday in Nature Climate Change, offers a new way to think about the financial risks of doing nothing.

The study’s authors, based at the London School of Economics and the research firm Vivid Economics, estimate that a business-as-usual emissions path would lead to expected warming of 2.5 degrees C by 2100. Under that scenario, banks, pension funds, and investors could sacrifice up to $2.5 trillion in value of stocks, bonds, and other financial assets. The worst-case scenario, with a 1-percent chance of occurring, would put $24 trillion (about 17 percent of global financial assets) at risk.

This is the first time economists have put climate risk in terms the financial sector understands — and the picture isn’t particularly pretty. Let’s dive in.

Why is climate change so expensive?

Transitioning to a green economy will undoubtedly require a bunch of cash. The nonprofit advocacy group Ceres estimates that we’ll need about $1 trillion annually in investment to shift the world away from fossil fuels. But let’s put that aside for a moment, and talk about what happens if we don’t put up the money. What do we stand to lose?

Climate change can affect the economy in myriad ways; including the extent to which people can perform their jobs, how productive they are at work, and the effects of shifting temperatures and precipitation patterns on things like agricultural yields or manufacturing processes. These factors help determine our “economic output” — all the goods and services produced by an economy. Output is usually measured by tools like the Gross Domestic Product.

Back in October, a study published in Nature estimated that the world could see a 23 percent drop in global economic output by 2100 due to a changing climate, compared to a world with no climate change.

“Historically, people have considered a 20 percent decline in global Gross Domestic Product to be a black swan: a low-probability catastrophe,” said a coauthor of that study, economist Solomon Hsiang of U.C. Berkeley. Instead, he says, “We’re finding it’s more like the middle-of-the-road forecast.”

What other costs haven’t we been counting?

But economic output isn’t the same thing as asset value. There’s a difference between economics and finance, and the Nature Climate Change study targets the latter.

Let’s say a company makes chocolate bars. Climate change might mess with cocoa production or productivity of workers. Maybe some of the bars end up a lil’ melty and misshapen and nobody wants to buy them. All told, the company might see a drop in sales.

If the company’s output drops, that’s one thing. But you also have to think about these losses in terms of what the company’s board of directors has to tell its shareholders and lenders. These investors — the ones who made those chocolate bars possible in the first place, whether through buying stock or granting loans — are expecting returns on their investments (through dividends and interest). Lower output likely means lower returns for them.

Until Monday’s Nature Climate Change study, nobody had really quantified the climate-induced losses at this level. Economic output studies like Hsiang and his collaborators’ are about the actual gears of the economy: the stuff that’s being produced, the way it’s being produced, and the people that are producing it. The LSE and Vivid Economics study is about the money greasing the wheels and the people holding this money. Those are the people who really matter when it comes to a clean energy transition, because they’re the ones with the bank accounts to finance it.

What’s more, corporate boards are legally obligated to make sure those shareholders’ bank accounts look good. This idea — “fiduciary duty” — means that corporate boards and institutional investors like pension fund managers can (must!) take action to further the interests of investors.

Demonstrating the risk climate change poses to financial assets is a way to appeal directly to these responsibilities. For those of us interested in climate action, that’s a good thing.

So how does climate change put these assets at risk?

The authors of the new study write that climate change can affect the value of financial assets in two ways. First, it can just destroy them. If a hurricane wrecks a beachfront hotel, that hotel no longer produces financial value.

Second, climate change can reduce how much a given investment is worth. This point is a little more abstract. One of the things that Hsiang and his colleagues showed in October was that there’s actually an optimal temperature for economic productivity: about 55 degrees F. Any shift in average temperature above that threshold tends to result in less productivity from workers. If workers are less productive but investment levels remain the same, that means those dollars aren’t worth as much in a warming world.

The craziest thing about this argument is that it’s not just about the fossil-fuel industry — it’s about the whole financial sector. Plenty has been written about the potential losses that investors could incur due to continued faith in the fossil-fuel economy. The “stranded asset” argument says that as climate policy makes fossil fuels less and less likely to be burned, investors sitting on fossil reserves won’t be able to make a profit or sell them off.

By broadening this argument to include risks for effectively every investor under the sun, the authors have just turned up the heat on us all.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original link: 

Unpacking climate change’s $2.5 trillion impact

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Unpacking climate change’s $2.5 trillion impact

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

It seems like every few weeks there’s some new measurement of how successful solar power is in the United States. In early March, industry analysts found that solar is poised for its biggest year ever, with total installations growing 119 percent by the end of 2016. This week, federal government analysts reported that in 2015, solar ranked No. 3 (behind wind and natural gas) in megawatts of new electricity-producing capacity brought online. That rank is even more impressive when you consider that each individual solar installation is fewer megawatts than a wind turbine, and far fewer than a natural gas plant; that means solar panels are popping up like crazy across the country.

Which makes you wonder: Is there a limit to that growth? According to a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a federal research outfit, there’s good news and bad news. The bad news: Yes, there is a ceiling for solar power in the U.S. The good news: We’re not even remotely close to reaching it. In other words, solar’s potential has barely been tapped.

Advertisement – Article continues below

The report is the deepest dive on solar’s potential since NREL conducted a similar analysis in 2008. The new report’s estimate is much larger than the older report’s, mostly because of vast new troves of satellite imagery data of the country’s rooftops and computer models that are better able to calculate how much power each panel can produce. The analysis leaves behind policy and cost considerations. Instead, the only question is: How much power could we really get if we slathered every roof in America with solar panels? The answer: About 39 percent of the country’s electricity consumption, at current levels.

It’s important to note that the report looks only at rooftop panels, as opposed to utility-scale solar farms. Utility-scale solar provides about twice as much power as rooftop panels, so the full potential of solar is likely even higher than what NREL describes in this report. Even 39 percent, though, would be a revolutionary change from where we are now; despite solar’s rapid growth in the last several years, it still accounts for less than 1 percent of electricity consumption. Coal, which is still the nation’s No. 1 energy source, commands about 32 percent of the market. So the future that NREL is envisioning here would basically flip our energy makeup on its head.

The most potential exists in sunny states, obviously, but also in states that have relatively low electricity needs. The map below shows what percentage of each state’s power could be derived from rooftop panels if they were fully utilized:

NREL

Again, NREL stresses that the estimates here “provide an upper bound on potential deployment rather than a prediction of actual deployment.” It’s very unlikely that this exact scenario will come to pass. The most recent study by Stanford energy economist Mark Jacobson, who researches ways the U.S. could get 100 percent of its power from renewable sources, sees rooftop solar contributing about 7 percent of total electricity by 2050. And that’s with, as Vox’s David Roberts put it, “enormous, heroic assumptions about social and political change.”

But hey … we’re dreamers of the golden dream, right?

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article is from – 

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

France Will Require Green Roofs and Solar Panels on New Buildings

France has passed a law that will require all new commercial buildings to be equipped with either green roofs or solar panels, according to The Guardian. The law states that any new building constructed in a commercial space must be covered halfway with either greenery or solar panelsbusinesses can decide which option to choose.

The benefits of green roofs

Green roofs are a solution to many urban and environmental problems and are popular among environmental activists and green-minded city planners alike. Covering a building with plant life insulates the structure, making it more energy efficient. In fact, green roofs can reduce the amount of air conditioning necessary to cool a building by up to 75 percent, according to Greenroofs.org.

Thats not all that these sky-high landscapes can do for cities. Like all plant life, these oases of greenery absorb carbon and keep the air cool, helping to mitigate the Heat Island Effect: a phenomenon that makes urban areas significantly warmer than suburban and rural communities because of human activities. Green roofs also provide sanctuary for birds, bees and other species that need spaces to call home in crowded, dense cities.

Green roof laws: An international trend

France isnt the first country to enact legislation encouraging rooftop greenery. Cities such as Tokyo, Toronto, Zurich and Copenhagen also require new buildings to have some or all of their roofs covered in plants. So far, U.S. cities have opted for tax breaks rather than legislation to address the issue.

Offering incentives such as tax breaks is better than making someone do something, Bradley Rowe of the MSU Green Roof Research Program told Yes Magazine in an interview last year. Building owners forced to put on a green roof may cut corners.

Solar panels as an alternative

Of course, French businesses arent being forced to cover half of their roofs in greenerythey can opt for solar panels instead. Solar panel use has grown rapidly in France, with 2014 figures showing 5,300 MW of solar energy production annually. Its a number that continues to rise as the country shifts toward more sustainable energy policies.

The green roof and solar panel legislation is expected to be a step in the right direction. Though activists had initially wanted mandatory green roof laws for every new building, government officials convinced them to accept the law as it currently stands. The next time you visit France, you may notice a little more plant life on the rooftops!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

See original:  

France Will Require Green Roofs and Solar Panels on New Buildings

Posted in alo, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, sustainable energy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on France Will Require Green Roofs and Solar Panels on New Buildings

WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

By on 24 Feb 2016commentsShare

The World Trade Organization delivered a blow to India’s ambitious solar power program on Wednesday at the behest of the United States. So much for all that nice chatter about international climate cooperation back in December.

Responding to a U.S. complaint, a WTO dispute panel ruled that several provisions of India’s National Solar Mission were “inconsistent” with international trade norms. The point of contention? India’s solar plan, which seeks to install 100 gigawatts of solar capacity by 2022, requires a certain percentage of cells and panels to be manufactured locally.

These types of provisions, called domestic content requirements, are prohibited under most international trade agreements. Want to be part of the WTO? You gotta be open to trade — every time — or you’re guilty of the dreaded protectionism.

Advertisement

An estimated 300 million Indians don’t have access to electricity. The country’s solar plan, launched in 2010, aims to change that — while simultaneously combating poverty via job creation. And while India has indeed made strides in adding solar capacity, the U.S. argues that the Solar Mission’s domestic content requirements have led to a 90 percent decrease in its solar exports to India since 2011. The export losses led the U.S. to file a WTO complaint, which has been staunchly opposed by several U.S. environmental groups. In August of last year, the WTO panel released a preliminary ruling against the Indian domestic content requirements, and Wednesday’s ruling finalized that decision.

U.S. solar industry leaders praised the WTO panel ruling. (Recall that they stand to make more money by selling their equipment in India.) “This decision helps us bring clean energy to the people of India, as that nation’s demand for electricity rapidly grows,” Dan Whitten, vice president of communications for the Solar Energy Industries Association, told PV-Tech. This, of course, ignores the fact that domestic content requirements allow a country like India to provide themselves with clean energy. (And to potentially do so with fewer emissions, as domestically produced solar panels don’t have to be shipped in from overseas — but this story isn’t exactly about what’s right for the environment.)

The ruling is a particularly harsh kick in the gut to climate cooperation, coming so soon after the (quasi-)promising results reached in Paris last December. “The ink is barely dry on the U.N. Paris Climate Agreement, but clearly trade still trumps real action on climate change,” said Sam Cossar-Gilbert, a program coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, in a statement.

You might be tempted to call the U.S. a hypocrite at this point: On the one hand, it led the Paris climate talks in all but name, while on the other hand, it pressed ahead with its WTO complaint against India. But this isn’t so much a demonstration of American inconsistency on the issue as it is of the disconnect between trade policy and climate policy more generally. If there’s hypocrisy to be found anywhere, it’s in U.S. trade policy itself: The United States supports some degree of subsidies for local renewables in nearly half of all states. India could likely file a WTO complaint against the U.S. if it wanted.

This isn’t the first time that trade agreements have cast a shadow over a domestic solar initiative. In 2012, for example, in response to a complaint filed on behalf of Japan and the E.U., the WTO ruled against the government of Ontario’s green energy program, which incentivized renewable producers to source goods and services from inside the province. As the free-trade logic goes, these types of local content requirements discriminate against foreign manufacturers.

Wednesday’s decision comes at a time of rampant coal and waste burning for India. In Delhi, air quality is now worse than in Beijing. While India will now consider an appeal to the WTO Appellate Body, it’s worth noting that when Canada appealed the Ontario WTO ruling, it lost.

Said Cossar-Gilbert: “Trade policies are preventing a sustainable future.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article: 

WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WTO swats down India’s massive solar initiative

France Is Paving More Than 600 Miles of Road With Solar Panels

In five years, France hopes the panels will supply power to 5 million people

Source article: 

France Is Paving More Than 600 Miles of Road With Solar Panels

Posted in GE, Smith's, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on France Is Paving More Than 600 Miles of Road With Solar Panels