The Ford Motor Company's Business (Survival) Plan

Below is the section on sustainability and electric vehicles from the business plan that Ford presented to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2nd. After reviewing this plan as well as the plans, the big three CEO's testimony to Congress, and also the financial health of the Detroit automakers, I have to say that Ford's relatively stronger balance sheet, their aggressive plans for rolling out electric vehicles, and having a chairman in Bill Ford who has longed to make Ford a green auto company, makes Ford the favorite to come out of this recession with a plan and strategy that will put them in a position of strength to compete with the Toyotas and Hondas who have been eating the big three's lunch throughout the past three decades. More to come on the plans of GM and Chrysler, but from first glance it looks like GM is asking for $18 billion to gut the company, while Chrysler seems to be a counting down the days until its cash shortage forces them to turn off the lights.

Here is the press release from Ford, which has links to both the plan (PDF) and appendix (PPT).

A WSJ reporter lived blogged the testimony, and it is worth reading in its entirety, especially the parts where Nardelli and Wagoner seem to be losing it.



Ford's Sustainability and Electrification Strategy
(page 16 in the report)

Ford’s sustainability plan will achieve continuous and substantial improvement in fuel economy and a corresponding reduction in CO2 through affordable technology in high volume. Ford’s plan is to make affordable fuel efficiency available to millions of consumers.

Our three-phased approach – with near-term,medium-term and long-term advanced technologies and products – begins now with advanced internal combustion engine and
transmission technologies, such as our EcoBoost engines going into production on several vehicles in 2009. The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles, as battery costs improve and as the transition from Hybrids to Plug-in Hybrids to Battery Electric Vehicles occurs. (See Appendix, Slide 4.)

Next month at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, we will discuss in detail Ford’s accelerated vehicle electrification plan, which includes bringing to market by 2012 a family of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles. Our work will include partnering with battery and powertrain systems suppliers to deliver a full battery electric vehicle (BEV) in a van-type vehicle for commercial fleet use in 2010 and a BEV sedan in 2011. We will develop these vehicles in a manner that enables us to reduce costs and ultimately makes battery electric powered vehicles more affordable for consumers.

Our plan also includes building on our competence in hybrid vehicles, as demonstrated by the industry-leading fuel economy of the Ford Escape and Ford Fusion hybrids. We are now developing our next generation full hybrid technology, which includes plug-in capability, for vehicles in 2012 and beyond. We are targeting a substantial increase in hybrid volume through a greater than 30% reduction in cost, installation of hybrid capability in global platforms and hybrid vehicles that are uniquely styled.

We cannot, however, accomplish significant electrification by ourselves. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires American-developed breakthroughs in high-power energy batteries (e.g. lithium ion). In order to make significant progress in electrification, Ford supports establishing a U.S. public/private partnership to accelerate the development of this capability, including supporting infrastructure, within the United States.

Obama's National Security Adviser "Puts Energy First"

The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog has a story on President-elect Obama's choice for our National Security Adviser, General Jim Jones. Gen. Jones has been on record stating that energy is a national security issue. This should be a no brainer, but it is a 180 from the Bush administration, which has talked the talk but failed to walk the walk when it comes to taking action on climate change and energy security. Here is an interesting quote from Jones, provided by Environmental Capital:

“We are in a race against the clock and complacency is our greatest enemy. If we do not take this challenge seriously, America’s economic prosperity, national security, and global standing will be at risk. The status quo is not only an option, it is a recipe for failure.”

Can I get an Amen!? This is another sign that energy independence will be at the top of Obama's list of priorities. My friends, the closer we get to PE Obama's inauguration the more I can sense that change to our backwards energy policy is around the corner. How about you?

The EPA is seeking local applicants for its Green Jobs Training Program

According to Pop City the EPA is looking for 60 Pittsburgh area applicants for its Brownfields Jobs Training Program. The federal agency is looking for applicants who live in local brownfield areas, such as Braddock, Swissvale, Clairton, Duquesne, McKeesport and Homestead. The training will develop the individuals to become certified environmental technicians and brownfield remediation specialists.

From the Pop City announcement:

The jobs pay about $12 to $15 an hour and include health insurance and benefits. Job placement services are available after training. Graduates will receive licenses for positions such as field technicians and phase I environmental technicians that conduct soil, water, air and building material testing and may receive further certification as a lead or asbestos inspector or clean-up technician.

While $12 to $15 an hour doesn't sound like much, and it isn't, it is a start, and these are the types of jobs and skills that will soon be in high demand. The program will lead to higher paying positions once the trainees get some experience. The EPA reaching out to potential applicants in areas like the aforementioned East Pittsburgh neighborhoods is what I call the Van Jones effect. As Van Jones said, the green movement cannot be just about rich people putting solar panels on their rooftops. The green movement must be inclusive, and must be about green jobs for all, especially those who are struggling and looking for jobs that have the potential for advancement and higher incomes. Green jobs can and will be the "rising tide that lifts all boats" and I am glad to see this announcement that there are indeed real green job openings right here in Pittsburgh.

Project Better Place is on a Roll

Last week Shai Agassi, CEO of Better Place, announced a $1 billion project that will bring his electric vehicle network to the Bay Area. Now there is news that Agassi has struck a deal with the Governor of Hawaii to bring his electric car network to Aloha state by 2012. This is huge news for everyone concerned with the environment and energy independence, and it is proof that the state of Hawaii is serious about cutting its dependence on foreign oil by 70% by the year 2030.

MSN Autos Editorial Bashes Tesla Motors, skeptical of GM's Volt

Auto critic Lawrence Ulrich tells us to "get read to pull the plug" on Tesla motors. Mr. Ulrich says that transmission glitches and the delayed roll out of its model "S" roadster is proof that the demise of Tesla is around the corner:

While the fledgling electrocar specialists haven’t hung a “gone fishing” sign on the front door just yet, it might be just a matter of time. That isn’t changing anytime soon, regardless of how much money company founder and newly appointed CEO Elon Musk can scare up for his pet project. And this group of Silicon Valley geniuses isn’t alone. You can simply add Tesla’s name to the long list of electric car builders that have talked a big game and failed to deliver.

Yes, the production delays and the issues with the model S's transmission have made Tesla motor's customers, fans, and followers like myself a little anxious. We want to see this company succeed and live to be a model for 21st Century American auto manufacturing. One reason I think Ulrich is too quick to write off Tesla motors is the man behind the company - Elon Musk. I've read several interviews and stories about him in magazines such as Fast Company. He may come off to some as arrogant but you can't argue with success - and someone who puts his money where his mouth is. In his latest interview Musk discloses that has invested $55 million of his personal money in the company, which has raised close to $200 million overall. Musk also listed a string of his accomplishments and successes, which include PayPal, which he co-founded, and added "I've never had a failure, and I'm not going to add one now." Do you think that this guy would let Tesla Motors fail this early in the game?

Ulrich does expect them to fail, and it is clear that he doesn't think tech geeks belong in the auto industry. He says that starting a real car company takes billions. Well, eventually, yes, it does, but a brief history lesson is in order here. If Mr. Ulrich studied some history of the struggles of Henry Ford he would realize that starting a car company from scratch is a journey of ups and downs, and, as Ford showed, it takes perseverance and dedication to see it through. In fact, Ford's first auto company, The Detroit Automobile Company, failed soon after it was started due to financing issues.

So, while the road has been bumpy and the company is already on CEO #4, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. First, Tesla Motors will survive the devastation of our capital markets. The company did have to lay off a lot of its employees and delay its production of its 4 door $70k Sedan, but it was recently able to secure another round of financing and will soon be on the receiving end of a DOE loan, and may very well see a small slice ($400mm) of the proposed $25 billion auto industry bailout. Secondly - they are rolling vehicles off the production line, and they are still taking orders and offering test drives for potential customers. These facts seem to be absent from Ulrich's column, and while he does think GM's Volt is more likely to be accepted by consumers than Tesla's pure plug-in vehicle, he is also skeptical of GM having much success with the Volt, even saying that sales of 10,000 units in its first full year would be a "monumental success." I doubt this guy feels the same way, and I have a strong feeling that if GM can stay afloat and produce the Volt closer to the $30k price point, they will have difficulty producing enough vehicles to meet demand. The Volt is really the future of GM, they are putting all their chips on its success, and if you combine that with the Volt's range extending gasoline/E85 tank, not to mention a federal tax credit of $7500, it is difficult to think that the Volt will be a flop. Forget Ulrich's column where he is trying to hard to be a contrarian, and forget about the demise of the electric car, because the revenge of the electric car is around right around the corner!

Update: I may have found an even more ridiculous column, this time in the New York Times Business section, that is critical of Tesla Motors for requesting $400 million of the $25 billion auto industry bailout. The column's writer, Randall Stross, is so short sighted in his analysis it is painful:

The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?

Does Stross really think tax payer money is in better hands if all of it goes to the big 3? Hello McFly!!! Does Stross realize that Tesla is requesting less than 2% of the total package? It is clear that he doesn't know much about Tesla Motors, and that they will be producing two electric vehicles to be sold lower price points within the next 2 to 5 years, and that the survival of Tesla Motors is actually more important than the big 3 in terms of the technological advancement of America's auto industry. Two tech heavyweights offer their take on Stross's column, including Jason Calcanis, an owner of a Tesla model S, who wrote a point by point retort of Stross at his blog. His conclusion is worth re-posting here:

Randall says “Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be
put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to
benefit fewer people?”

Sure, how about the Iraq war, which costs around $400m a day–dollars
that we have no chance of ever seeing again (as opposed to a loan,
which is paid back with interest).

Your editorial should have started with this fact: if we leave Iraq a
week early, we can give two billion dollars in loans to *five*
electric car companies. That’s your lead right there, Randy. That’s
leadership, that’s the truth and that’s your job as a journalist. Not
this “damn the billionaires” crap. In fact, the billionaires in this
country have done a hell of a lot (see Gates, Buffet, Turner and
countless others)…But that’s for another email. Let’s get back on
the subject.

You need to put things back in their proper perspective instead of
obsessing about the fact that some of the investors in Tesla are
really rich, that the first version of the car is slightly more
expensive than a luxury car, and that battery power is *only* going to
*double* every ten years.

You really should rewrite the editorial and give the public a fair
world view instead of one warped by some short-term populist
propaganda. Tesla isn’t about rich Silicon Valley guys in sports cars:
it’s about extracting ourselves from the environment-killing,
human-rights violating, terrorist-supporting regimes in the Middle
East. The only reason we deal with countries that suppress women and
homosexuals and give money to terrorists who kill based on a religion
is because we are dependent on their oil. If we didn’t need their oil,
we would treat them like we treat other rogue regimes–isolate them
until they got their act together.

Companies like Tesla are the direct path to our independence from such
treachery.

The DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has a blog!

I found a very useful blog brought to us by none other than the Department of Energy's Office of EERE. The blog is titled Energy Savers, and the blog contains, you guessed it, tips on how each of us can save energy in and around our homes. I found the blog while doing research on ways to weatherize our house. Although the Energy Savers blog was created just this past September they have already posted helpful information on a wide range things from energy audits to tax incentives for energy efficient appliances and home improvements.

The following are a few of their best posts to date:

Six Places to Find Help with your Energy Costs
Two Stories of Successful Energy Audits
Energy Tax Credits: Stay Warm and Save MORE Money!
EERE's Energy Calculators

According to their first post from back in September, we can expect about 2 posts a week on the Energy Savers blog:

Welcome! The Energy Savers Blog is a new undertaking here at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We've been hearing so much great feedback from consumers who visit the Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy that we decided to offer a new way to share your ideas, needs, and issues around energy. And this is it!

This blog is our place to discuss important energy issues with you, and your place to converse with us and others facing those issues. We've gathered a small team of bloggers who each offer a different perspective on saving energy and using renewable technologies. We hope that (at least occasionally) you'll find an outlook that you can relate to and information you can use.

Since many of us are already feeling a bit of a chill in the air, we are well aware that the approaching winter and high energy costs are probably on your mind as well. To help you get prepared before the snow flies, over the next two months we will be gearing our blog posts specifically toward "winterization" strategies that can help you save energy and money.

Expect to see regular posts approximately twice a week, with more posts throughout the month of October, widely known around here as Energy Awareness Month.

Finally, here are a few more helpful links from the Office of EERE:

EERE Consumer's Guide
Energy Saver's website
Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EERE Information Center

Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low Carbon Economy

Tickets to the event in DC are sold out but click here to RSVP for the live Webcast

Live Webcast

Green Recovery

December 1, 2008, 12:00pm – 1:30pm

Please join the Center for American Progress and three of the country's leading advocates for investments in a green economy for a discussion on how each step of an economic recovery package (stabilization, stimulus, recovery, and growth) can be greened, and explore both national and state perspectives on policy solutions towards transforming our economy to a low-carbon model.

Introduction by:
Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

Featured Speakers:
Governor Ed Rendell (D - PA)

Thomas Friedman, columnist, New York Times; author, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution -- and How It Can Renew America

Moderated by:
Bracken Hendricks, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

A Green Building Report with some awesome statistics on LEED certified buildings

Joel Makower points us to a great report on the impact of LEED certified buildings. The Green Building Impact Report, written by Robert Watson, one of the brains behind the creation of the LEED certification program, is free to download or view online. The report, at only 24 pages long, is worth your time if you have an interest in green building, especially if you, like me, are trying to sell the idea of building LEED certified to stakeholders in your town or company.

Page 3 of the report summarizes the following statistics related to the environmental impacts of LEED certified non-residential buildings:

• Nearly 400 million vehicle miles traveled have been avoided by the occupants of LEED buildings, thanks to efficient locations and the myriad of alternative transportation options supported by LEED. This will grow to more than 4 billion vehicle miles by 2020.
• Expected water savings from LEED commercial buildings will grow to more than 7% of all non-residential water use by 2020. The equivalent of 2008 LEED water savings would fill enough 32-ounce bottles to circle the Earth 300 times.
• LEED buildings consume approximately 25% less energy on average than comparable commercial buildings. By 2020, these energy savings will amount to more than 1.3 million tons of coal equivalent each year, representing approximately 78 million tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions.
• LEED has helped spur an entire industry in green building materials. Certified projects to date have specified a total of more than $10 billion of green materials, which could grow to a cumulative amount exceeding $100 billion by 2020.
• Companies with employees working in LEED buildings realized annual productivity gains exceeding $170 million resulting from improved indoor environmental quality, a number that will grow to nearly $2 billion of annual productivity improvements by 2020.

A Green Wishlist for Obama

Renewable energy trade groups came together on a conference call last week to submit their wish lists for the Obama administration. Here is the summary courtesy of the Green Wombat blog:

• A five-year extension of the production tax credit for the wind industry (it currently has to be renewed every year) to remove uncertainty for investors.
• A major infrastructure program to upgrade the transmission grid so wind, solar and geothermal energy can be transmitted from the remote areas where it is produced to major cities. Obama advisor Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google (GOOG), recently joined with General Electric (GE) chief Jeff Immelt to launch a joint initiative to develop such smart grid technology as well as push for policy changes in Washington to allow the widespread deployment of renewable energy by rebuilding the nation’s transmission system.
• Impose a national “renewable portfolio standard” that would mandate that utilities obtain a minimum 10% of their electricity from green sources by 2012 and at least 25% by 2020. Two-thirds of the states currently impose variations of such requirements.
• Mandate that the federal government - the nation’s single largest consumer of electricity - obtain more energy from renewable sources.
• Enact a cap-and-trade carbon market.

I am supportive of all of the above, but here are a few things I would add to that list:

• A green bailout for the auto industry. If we're not building cars here in America then that means we no longer build anything - period. If all it takes is $25 billion of the remaining $350 billion that the Treasury dept. will have left to its disposal in 2009 then I say we bail out the big 3 with the following conditions: they must manufacture enough plug-in electric hybrids to meet President-elect Obama's goal of 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. They must also raise the average fuel economy of the fleets and they must do so by 2020. Joseph Romm of Climate Progress, and a former employee of the Dept. of Energy, lists some additional reasons for the green bailout over at Salon.com. The following is his bottom line for the bailout:
  

If we are going to bail out Detroit, the deal has to be based on meeting the new fuel economy standards of 35 mpg by 2020, and meeting them increasingly with hybrids. The deal has to be for multiple plug-in hybrid car models. And most important, the deal has to include a management team that is wholly committed to that inevitable transition, a team that will not waste a penny of the taxpayer-funded bailout lobbying against the even tougher standards and regulations that will be needed to avoid the harsh consequences of global warming and peak oil.

• The introduction of feebate system for all new automotive purchases from 2010 and beyond. Allow people to purchase 10 mpg SUVs but only with a gas guzzler fee attached to it. The gas guzzler fees will go towards paying incentives in the form of rebates to purchasers of hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles. For more information on recent legislation please read this article on the bill proposed in California.
  
• A new New Deal - a massive infrastructure program for new roads, bridges, and network of high speed rail. If we have to spend $200 billion then great, spend $200 billion, but the total cost of current infrastructure needs has been estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. China is planning on spending close to $600 billion on infrastructure projects over the next 2 years.
  
• A National Infrastructure Bank like the one proposed by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, so we have a systematic way of awarding taxpayer money for roads and rails to somewhere and not bridges to nowhere.
• Is clean coal for real or are we going to continue to waste billions on research and pilot CCS plants? If clean coal is viable then let's go for it, but if its BS then let's stop wasting our time and money and move on.
  

A huge win for environmentalists and energy progress

Earlier today California Representative Henry Waxman defeated Michigan Rep. John Dingell in a secret ballot vote to claim Dingell's seat as the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. From Politico:

The ascension of Waxman, a wily environmentalist, recasts a committee that Dingell has chaired since 1981 with an eye toward protecting the domestic auto industry in his native Michigan. The Energy and Commerce Committee has principal jurisdiction over many of President-elect Barack Obama's top legislative priorities, including energy, the environment and health care.

This is a huge win for both the Obama administration and each one of us who has been advocating change at the top for a long time. We now have an environmentally savvy Congressman heading the energy committee instead of a protector of the status quo, as Dingell has held that post since 1981 and has been a thorn in the side of anyone attempting to raise fuel standards for the Detroit automakers. I don't have to go into details telling you how abysmal his track record over the past 27 years has been. My friends - the change we need is on the way!

"It doesn't hurt to dream"

I just came across yet another Pittsburgh transit blog, this one titled the East Busway Blog. The Busway's latest post has an interesting idea for a light rail extension that would utilize the MLK East Busway (coincidence?) to reach towns to the northeast and southeast of the city of Pittsburgh. Here is the sketch of the proposed extensions courtesy of the East Busway blog:



As the East Busway blogger said, it doesn't hurt to dream. Hopefully the East Busway blogger finds his or her way to the Pittsburgh wiki's Regional Integrated Transportation Plan, which is entering its final stages of development. If you have dreams of a better transportation future for Pittsburgh please visit the site and let us know!

Sustainable Business Symposium at Duquesne University

This Thursday I will be attending a symposium on sustainability at Duquesne University here in Pittsburgh. I will be posting more following the event. Here is the event website.

Program schedule »

Envisioning a Sustainable Future

Daniel C. Esty, co-author, Green to Gold

An author and businessman, Esty has worked with large global companies—including BP, Toyota, GE, IKEA, Coca-Cola, Unilever and Shell—to foster innovation and competitive advantage through environmental thinking in a range of industries. Expect to capture viable ideas for reducing costs and risks while building your organization's reputation and revenues. Esty will be on hand to autograph complimentary copies of his book.

CEO Forum: Identifying Strategic Opportunities

Moderated by (photos from left to right):
Dr. Alan R. Miciak, dean, Palumbo-Donahue School of Business
Greg Babe, president & CEO, Bayer Corporation
Todd M. Bluedorn, CEO, Lennox International
Joseph C. Guyaux, president, PNC Financial Services Group
Diane P. Holder, president and CEO, UPMC Health Plan

Capture the leader's perspective on how sustainable practices fit into corporate strategy in different industries. Chief executives from three Fortune 500 companies and an internationally-renowned healthcare system will present their views. Learn what motivates an executive to support sustainability initiatives and gain insight to the issues that lie ahead for corporate leaders.

Luncheon Keynote Address: Governing for Sustainable Development Christine Todd Whitman 50th Governor of New Jersey and Former Head of the Environmental Protection Agency As head of a consulting firm that specializes in energy and environmental issues, Governor Whitman will share her perspectives on sustainability related to emerging regulatory issues, connecting the public sector with the business community, and comment on post-election expectations from a new administration. Read Bio »

Putting Sustainability into Practice

Moderated by (photos from left to right):
John T. Buckley, SVP and director of corporate social
responsibility, BNY Mellon
Nate Hurst, director, stakeholder engagement, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Susan Baker Shipley, SVP & managing director, Citizens Bank
Dr. Norbert Verweyen, vice president, RWE (Germany)

Senior managers, empowered to execute, share their experiences from building sustainable practices into their organizations. Learn about carbon trading from a leader in the European community; explore the challenges and rewards of metrics-driven accountability for sustainability commitments in a large organization; and follow the path that an organization traveled to leverage its scale while implementing high impact programs across the supply chain.

Building a Sustainability Action Plan

William R. Blackburn
president, William Blackburn Consulting
author, The Sustainability Handbook

William R. Blackburn's global consulting firm focuses on sustainable development; environment, health and safety management; and emergency and crisis response. A 35-year veteran in the field, Blackburn will discuss practical tactics for building a customized sustainability action plan in any organization. He will offer tools and advice for getting started, developing an action plan, adapting for unique operating needs, establishing criteria and implementing initiatives.

Pittsburgh's $6 million subway system

While doing some research on Pittsburgh's transportation history I found a reference to a report from 1925 titled "Report on a recommended subway in the first and second wards of Pittsburgh: Or, Proposed first step in a rapid transit program"

The reference was found in a report in the American City Planning Institutes's archives:

For Pittsburgh, there is a report published by the Traffic Commission, prepared by
Messrs. Turner and Haydock* on Recommended Subways in the First and Second Wards,a
proposed first step in a rapid transit program. In 1919, $6,000,000 was voted by the
citizens of Pittsburgh for such a subway, and in 1924 a Traffic Commission becoming
the Bureau of Traffic Relief was named to determine the character and route.  The
Report strongly recommends construction with a sub-street to care for pedestrians
and such a route as will spread the business district out from the over-concentrated
"Triangle". The plans and diagrams to show the advantages of through-routing are of
particular interest. 

So we could have had a subway system for $6 million back in 1925?
(roughly $73 million in today's dollars - still a bargain!)

Who is responsible for not implementing those plans?!  Well, according to the City
Paper story, the Port Authority screwed it up! So we have something to add to the
list of terrible decisions during the Port Authority's reign over the region's
transportation system: the East Busway, the SkyBus fiasco, the rejection of the
Spine Line plan, and last but not least, today's North Shore Connector aka the chunnel to nowhere.

From the 2005 City Paper story titled "Lost Tracks" :

Reworking concepts first proposed in 1917, city engineers Daniel L. Turner and
Winters Haydock offered up their 1925 Report on A Recommended Subway in the First
and Second Wards of Pittsburgh, or Proposed First Step in a Rapid Transit Program.

They proposed a rail system beyond the imagination of T riders today. It would have
joined East Liberty to the Central North Side, Squirrel Hill to the South Side,
Beltzhoover to Perry Hilltop -- and all of them to Downtown. Such a system could
have made Pittsburgh the Manhattan of the Alleghenies.

Turner and Haydock's top priority? A route they called the "Fifth Avenue Line" --
a two-track subway line with 17 stops connecting the Central North Side to Downtown,
Soho, Oakland, Shadyside and East Liberty.

Future lines could be built later, they noted. But "this line will furnish a rapid
transit connecting link between East Liberty, the Oakland center, the Triangle
District and the North Side business area." Taken together, the Golden Triangle,
the North Side and East Liberty made up the city's largest commercial engine;
the planners sought to "weld such separate centers more nearly into a single
community."

If money were scarce, the engineers urged, at least go from the North Side to Oakland.

That dream persisted for decades. And the year 1964, when the Port Authority was
formed, might've seemed a good time to begin work on it. Instead the transit agency,
built from the merger of dozens of struggling private bus and trolley companies,
hung its hopes on a scheme that was even more ambitious: Skybus.

Proposed to replace old trolley lines in the South Hills, Skybus was a novel system
featuring rubber-tired, driver-less coaches that would run on elevated guideways.
Controversial from the start (some objectors preferred rail while others were
spooked by buses that drove themselves), arguments grew so feverish that by 1974,
funding for Skybus was suspended by the federal government. One year later, the
Port Authority decided to give the South Hills light rail instead. The rest of the
city -- particularly the East End, home to the region's largest number of transit
users -- had to content itself with bus service.

12 Clean technologies make Time Magazine's list of Top 50 Inventions of 2008

Earth2Tech lists the cleantech inventions that made Time's The Best Inventions of the Year list. The Tesla Roadster (pictured) was #2 while GM's Chevy Volt was #7.

Via Earth2Tech, here is the list:

2. The Tesla Roadster: Even though the company has hit a rough patch as of late, the Roadster is an undeniable automotive force that has electrified the industry. We’ll see how long it takes for the Model S to deliver a car to the masses.

7. The Chevy Volt: The range-extended electric offering is a bridge to full-on electric cars. GM hopes that it will also be able to prop up its faltering business. Too bad a slew of competitors are debuting all-electric models the same year.

11. Green Crude: The prospect of making a carbon-neutral crude from biomass that can be refined and transported in the existing oil infrastructure has given birth to a significant number of startups - Sapphire Energy, Aquaflow Bionomic, Live Fuels and Solix Biofuels, to name a few. And now even big players like Dow Chemical, Boeing and UOP are getting in on the action.

21. The Synthetic Organism “Life by design” is Craig Venter’s idea. Being able to build organisms to spec could allow for breakthroughs in medicine and energy. Venter’s Synthetic Genomics is currently working on a microbe, which he says will be ready within the next year, that will eat carbon dioxide and secrete fuel.

25. Thin-Film Solar Panels: Nanosolar has made a lot of headlines with its goal of printing cheap solar panels. A slew of startups, like Xunlight, HelioVolt, OptiSolar and Innovalight, along with larger players like Sharp, LG and Intel, are racing toward the same goal.

31. Einstein’s Fridge: Scientists at Oxford University have resurrected a design for a low-energy refrigerator that Einstein patented in 1930. Instead of harmful freon, the design uses ammonia, butane and water — and a fraction of the energy. It’ll take some tweaking to boost the efficiency, but the researchers say it could work.

33. Biomechanical Energy Harvester: The hustle and bustle of the average day is full of energy, we just need to figure out how to capture that motion. M2E is working on a “battery” that could convert kinetic energy into electrical energy to power military devices or even your cell phone.

35. Airborne Wind Power: The energy of wind is related to the cube of its velocity, meaning faster wind is much more energetic. Those high-speed winds are high up and startups like Makani Power and WindLift are sending kites up to bring the energy down.

37. Smog-Eating Cement: Italian firm Italcementi claims its cement, called TX Active, can eat up nasty smog particles. A number of startups are also working to make cement greener — Hycrete and Arxx have both pulled in big backers for cleaner, greener concrete.

41. The Peraves MonoTracer: With a BMW engine and a look straight out of “Minority Report,” the Peraves MonoTracer is part car, part motorcycle and all about fuel efficiency. The vehicle gets 65 miles to the gallon and can go from 0 to 60 mph in under 5 seconds.

46. Aptera Electric Car: Although its space-age design might put some off, the all-electric Aptera has gotten backing from Google to help bring the three-wheeled vehicle to fruition.

47. Google’s Floating Data Center: Not so much an invention as an awesome idea, Google made waves with a patent filing it made that suggests the idea of a “water-based data center” that floats on a platform and uses “a sea-based electrical generator” and “sea-water cooling units.”

An emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.

"The electrifying redemption of America’s revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet." - Al Gore

If you haven't already read Al Gore's New York Times Op-Ed from the other day titled "The Climate for Change", where the former Vice President shows us his five-part plan that he is recommending to President-Elect Obama and the new Congress. I agree with all five of his recommendations and have followed each of them with my comments, which are in bold.

1. The new president and the new Congress should offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants in the Southwestern deserts, wind farms in the corridor stretching from Texas to the Dakotas and advanced plants in geothermal hot spots that could produce large amounts of electricity.

This is essentially 1/2 the Pickens plan. Notice how Al Gore is not recommending or pushing natural gas vehicles on us. This is a great first step since we will increase the pace of utility-scale solar plants and wind farms if we want to generate 100% of our electricity from carbon free source in 20 or 30 years, let alone the 10 years that Al Gore wants us to shoot for. Vice President Gore does not mention Nuclear Power but I agree with Obama's position which is that Nuclear should be part of the mix as long as we implement safe and secure procedures for storing spent fuel.

2. We should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

Do you know how often our power is out for hours due to your standard thunderstorm? Far too often, and it is due to the updated and dumb electricity grid that spans every corner of our nation. If we are going to invest trillions in new 21st century electricity generation we need a 21st century grid that will deliver that electricity to our door steps and to our electric vehicles, which, if powered by clean electricity, will be the solution that kicks our oil dependency habit.

3. We should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.

Well, any bailout is going to be controversial, but I have to agree with both Al Gore and Tom Friedman, who in his column today, wrote that while we should not give the automakers a blank check but we should consider giving them a bailout with strings attached - as long as those strings insist on the automakers transforming their vehicle fleets to become hybrid electrics:

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

4. We should embark on a nationwide effort to retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy-efficient windows and lighting. Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings — and stopping that pollution saves money for homeowners and businesses. This initiative should be coupled with the proposal in Congress to help Americans who are burdened by mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.

Can we start with Pittsburgh's City County building at 414 Grant Street? It has to be the least energy efficient government buildings in all the land. The effort to retrofit buildings should start with schools and public buildings, and then the federal government should leave it to the individual utilities to manage this program, which will work as long as the utilities are given incentives to reduce their average customer's electricity consumption. California has been doing this for a while now and despite having a growing population and expanding economy over the last twenty years their per capita energy usage has remained flat.

5. The United States should lead the way by putting a price on carbon here at home, and by leading the world’s efforts to replace the Kyoto treaty next year in Copenhagen with a more effective treaty that caps global carbon dioxide emissions and encourages nations to invest together in efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly, including by sharply reducing deforestation.

Do we implement a carbon tax or do we implement a cap and trade system? I've seen good arguments for both sides, and I'm not sure where I stand on the issue since either one would be difficult to achieve politically, not to mention the costs that would be passed on to consumers would be too burdensome on many citizens who are already struggling in today's economy.

One policy initiative that I am in favor of that would fall under a carbon tax is a feebate on vehicle purchases. I don't consider myself to be a libertarian, but I do think individuals should have the freedom to purchase big gas guzzlers - as long as they are adequately paying for the full cost of doing so. That full cost would come to fruition if there was a fee charged to consumers on all purchases of vehicles that are consider gas guzzlers. On the flip side, consumers who choose to purchase fuel efficient vehicles and hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles should be rewarded with incentives such as rebates. This proposal is gaining steam in some states and I expect it to get some consideration at the federal level.

We're #10!!!

Forbes ranks Pittsburgh as the 10th hottest market for green jobs. How did they compile the rankings? You got me. While I'm not sure if we have a better green jobs market than Austin Texas, which is not in the rankings, I do think we have some promise when it comes to being a leading region for the green economy. I mentioned in previous posts that we have a growing biofuels sector, with SteelCity Biofuels and GTECH Strategies leading the way. We have some smaller market for solar manufacturers, which include the Mon Valley's Solar Power Industries, who recently announced that it is expanding and hiring 1500 workers over the next 3 years. Pittsburgh is not a region that with a substantial capacity for generating wind power, but we do have PPG industries, which manufactures coatings and materials that go on wind turbine blades. Unfortunately, while PPG gets credit for being green Pittsburgh doesn't get credit for the green jobs, since these jobs will be in one of PPG's plants in North Carolina.

New addition to Green is Good

As we anticipate the inauguration of what should be our first Green President I figured it is time to start ramping up Green is Good's coverage and analysis of energy technology and what should be our first real wave of public policy aimed at fighting global climate change. I would like to welcome James Dillard to the team of contributers at Green is Good. James is currently an Executive Director at Nourish International, an organization that is working to eradicate global poverty, and he was an intern at Pittsburgh based startup Plextronics, a manufacturer of thin film solar cells. James was also a columnist for UNC's student paper, The Daily Tar Heel, s o I have high hopes that he will bring some quality writing to this blog.

James anticipates using some of his earlier posts to inform us of some of the things China is doing to combat climate change. If you've read the book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" you are well aware that covering China's efforts is something we could use more of. With that, welcome aboard, James.

More on President-elect Obama's Energy Priorities

The New York Times posted a Q&A with a number of energy and enviromental gurus over at their Green Inc. blog. Note the pessimism of the first expert, Vaclav Smil, who tells us not to get our hopes up for some type of overnight changes from the Obama administration. I see his point, but I think the differences between the Obama administrations approach to energy policy and the current administration's approach will be night and day. Oil executives will no longer drive the agenda of the White House when it comes to energy policy. That major change right there is reason to be hopeful that we will start to see progress towards energy indpendence and reasonable policies addresssing climate change. We are not expecting President-elect Obama to make us energy self sufficient by the end of his second term, but we are expecting him him to put us on a path towards energy independence. This blog will be cheering him but we will be critiquing his decisions as well.

Vaclav Smil, a professor at the University of Manitoba who has authored numerous books on global energy issues, told us informally that anyone expecting Mr. Obama to “transform the world” will be quickly disabused of the idea — particularly when it comes to energy policy. “The degree of disappointment that must follow such a gross naivete will be phenomenal,” Mr. Smil wrote.

“There will be precious little of any rapid change,” he added, “as
energy systems are inherently inertial and as energy transitions take decades to
accomplish. Besides, he will preside over a bankrupt nation.”

Also participating their Q&A:

Roger Ballentine, the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force during the Clinton administration and now the president of Green Strategies, an energy and environmental consulting firm in Washington.
Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate change strategy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning policy research organization in Washington.
Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, an association of shareholder-owned utilities.
Carol Raulston, senior vice president for communications at the National Mining Association, a trade group in Washington.
Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

Below are the list of questions that the experts answered via email. The URLs will take you to their answers.

1) What should the new administration’s top three energy priorities be? What can and should the administration push in terms of energy in its first 100 days?
2) What do the election results signify for the future of renewable energy?
3) How likely is it that a meaningful cap-and-trade bill to limit carbon-dioxide emissions will pass Congress and be signed by the President in the next year?
4) After 4 years, will the new administration have moved us closer to severing our dependence on foreign oil?

The First Green President of the United States

With regards to Obama and his strategies for greening American, his policies may not be perfect, but when it comes to the big picture Barack Obama gets it. The following candid statement of his on the ridiculousness of some of the debate questions gives us an inside look at his approach to solving the climate crisis.

When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

With our economy and financial markets in shambles, it is fair to ask what could a President Obama realistically achieve early in his first term in the White House to put us on the track to energy independence and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. My friend Costa beat me to the punch and wrote a nice summary of the potential green measures taken by the new Obama administration over at Sustainable Research.

The following sites also detail Obama's energy and environmental policies.

Earth2Tech: FAQ: The Obama Energy Plan
Gristmill: Is Obama's energy plan change we can believe in?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Obama's Energy Plan will create green gold rush
Reuters: Obama's Energy Plan may be Curbed but not Halted

In addition to some of the action items listed in Obama's policy papers and the aforementioned websites I have a short list of the top priorities that I think the Obama adinistration will address starting during its first 12 months.

1. Launch the $150 billion clean tech venture fund ($15 billion in clean tech investments and grants each year)
   
2. Work on a detailed plan that incentivizes American automakers to retool their factories and start building more hybrid electric and plug in hybrid vehicles. Back in 2006 Obama co-sponsored legislation called "Health Care for Hybrids" where the government would provide assistance for the automakers' employee health insurance in exchange for a commitment and investment by Detroit automakers in more fuel efficient vehicles.
3. Create a National Infrastructure Bank which would be in charge of distributing funding for billions in dollars of new infrastructure and infrastructure improvement projects. My friends - this would be real fiscal stimulus we can believe in.
4. Create the ground work for a national cap and trade system - this probably will not come into effect until at least year two or three of his first term
5. Create an incentive program to reach Obama's goal of 1 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on the road by 2015
6. Re-launch the federal initiative for a carbon sequestration pilot plant (FutureGen 2)

The following details are from the Obama campaign's New Energy for America Plan:

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

• Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

ENERGY PLAN OVERVIEW:

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.

Learn More...

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Learn More...

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Learn More...

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

The city of Pittsburgh hires a Sustainability Coordinator

According to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette the city of Pittsburgh hired Lindsay Baxter to be its Sustainability coordinator. This has been a long time coming, as the mayor announced over one year ago that he was hiring someone to fill this post. Ms. Baxter's background includes a fellowship with the Clean Air Cool Planet organization, and she is currently pursuing a Masters degree in environmental studies at Duquesne University.

The first things Ms. Baxter plans on tackling are reducing energy use in the city's street lamps and vending machines. Her primary focus will be on getting the city to adopt single stream recycling and kick starting the city's participation in the Department of Energy's Solar America Initiative.

Now is the time for a national infrastructure investment initiative

The other day The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote that infrastructure projects were a great way for the federal government to provide a boost to our struggling economy. Krugman said that the next President cannot afford to be weary of spending money on infrastructure as the well being of our economy should take precedent over concerns of our growing deficit.

I'm a big fan of a massive investment in new roads, bridges, and most importantly, and new rail lines, including high speed rail (I just read that Pittsburgh's maglev project is still alive!). The catch is that we cannot afford for our government to hastily spend this money on things like a bridge to nowhere, or Pittsburgh's very own tunnel to nowhere, and this is way I am in favor of a national infrastructure bank. Below is a excerpt of a post from my technology + politics blog on the proposed NIB.

Cutting taxes or sending out rebate checks does not create sustainable economic growth. Using that money to instead put people to work on building new and fixing existing bridges, roads, and rail would give us taxpayers the highest ROI, but we must spend taxpayer dollars responsibly, and that is why I favor the passing of legislation similar to the Dodd-Hagel National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. The reason we need a National Infrastructure Bank to stimulate growth through infrastructure investment is that at this point we cannot afford taxpayer money to go towards mores roads, bridges, and tunnels to nowhere. We need a system in place where the best projects are funded based on both their need (like our crumbling bridges here in Western PA) and their potential to spur economic growth. Our very own half billion dollar tunnel to nowhere should be enough evidence in favor of creating a better system and process for approving and funding projects that will make a difference.

Drill baby Drill! vs. Alternatives now!

WNYC's Brian Lehrer show has an awesome series called "30 issues in 30 days," which is a daily segment that he started running late last month. The special segment runs through the end of October and has tackled important issues such as immigration, education, middle east policy, and infrastructure. Last Friday they aired the #1 issue as voted by listeners, and that was energy independence. Drill baby Drill vs. Alternative Energy contains some interesting interviews, such as the one with the guy who traveled across the US in a car that ran on veggie oil, but the interview I want to highlight is the one between David Kruetzer, an energy policy analyst from the Heritage Foundation, a right leaning think tank, and Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Tyranny of Oil."

The debate highlighted the contrasts between the two sides of the energy independence debate - which is the one side's belief that we have enough oil offshore and in places like ANWR so there shouldn't be an urgency to displace oil, or the other side, which says we need start working on replacing oil completely right now. I think I'm in the latter category, although I agree with Senator Obama that it is okay to compromise on additional offshore drilling as long as incentives for renewables are part of the package.

I learn something new every time I listen to a lecture or read a book on energy issues, and listening to their debate was no different. It is well known that the US is #1 in worldwide energy consumption, but did you know that we are #3 oil producing nation in the world? Hard to believe but it is true! (Although Mr. Kruetzer seemed surprised by it!) The full show is at this page or you can listen using the embedded player below.

Highmark is one of Pittsburgh's greenest companies

Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield unveiled downtown Pittsburgh's first green roof earlier today. The 22,000 square foot green roof sits on top of the 3rd floor of downtown Pittsburgh's 5th Avenue Place tower. Highmark now has the green roof to go along with its LEED certified data center which is located on the other side of the state. Highmark has a full time Sustainability coordinator and from what insiders tell me they are serious about their commitment to making a difference through sustainability.

This is one small step towards greening downtown Pittsburgh. Over a year ago I called for the city to implement a plan to get all of its buildings downtown to install green roofs. Last August I posted this list of the benefits of green roofs and my vision for Pittsburgh's "Green Triangle." Hopefully other downtown businesses follow Highmark's lead.

below: the view from downtown's Highmark building

Heinz Talks: Climate Change and Energy Policy—Advice to Our Next President

The next president of the United States, whomever he may be, will be faced with crucial decisions regarding America’s federal policies toward climate change and energy strategy.

To address the importance of these issues, The Heinz Awards, Teresa Heinz and the Heinz School for Public Policy invite the public to a free program, Heinz Talks: Climate Change and Energy Policy—Advice to Our Next President at the Mellon Institute Auditorium on Monday, Oct. 20th at 5 p.m.

This marks a pivotal time in our nation's history as a new president takes office, says Lee Branstetter, associate professor of Economics and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a panelist. "The direction and emphasis of the U.S. government will change and these issues will be treated more seriously than in previous administrations.

"The Heinz Foundation and family have demonstrated incredible leadership in the realm of environmental policy. Our whole region bears witness to this rich legacy of concerned engagement and scholarship in this area."

Teresa Heinz, chairman of The Heinz Endowments, will open the evening and the panel will be moderated by Moira Gunnm, host of NPR’s Tech Nation. The panel includes several esteemed national and local leaders including John Holdren, recipient of the 7th annual Heinz Award for Public Policy and Lee Branstetter, and Granger Morgan, both of Carnegie Mellon University.

A blog called Heinz Talks! has been created for the event.

Details on the event and how you can RSVP can be found here at PopCity.

Debate Question: Manhattan Project or 100,000 entrepreneurs working out of their garages?

Tonight's debate featured a great question on the candidates approach to energy independence. Tom Brokaw asked John McCain if the strategy for achieving energy independence should be the government launching an Apollo/Manhattan Project or having 100,000 entrepreneurs working on energy solutions in their garages. McCain didn't really answer the question, saying that he favored the government getting involved and then handing it over to the private sector. It was not a good answer. I was interested in hearing Obama's answer but for some reason Brokaw didn't let him answer. I have heard most candidates say they favor an Apollo or Manhattan style project. I don't think this is the right approach, and so I dug up a few websites from Obama's positions on energy policy. Here is an excerpt from a speech he made back in February of 2006.

The federal government can help in two ways here. First, we can reduce the risk of investing. We already do this in a number of ways by funding projects critical to our national security. Energy independence should be no different. By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy security of our own military.

Since he began running for President Senator Obama has proposed having the Federal Government spend $150 billion over 10 years on strategic investments in clean energy projects. While $150 billion is not enough, I believe we need closer to $1 Trillion if we are to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, I do think his plan is a step in the right direction. Here is the link to their short, mid range, and long term energy plans followed by the paragraph on their $150 billion investment plan.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug‐in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly‐skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. All together these investments will help the private sector create 5 million new green jobs, good jobs that cannot be outsourced.

A friendly reminder from King Coal

Since I started working in downtown Pittsburgh again I take the "T", our light rail system, into work everyday from the South Hills. A few weeks ago I was entering the Wood Street station and I noticed an advertisement from local coal company Consol Energy. It seems Consol wanted to remind us that even though we think we are being green by taking public transportation the trains that run from the South Hills into downtown Pittsburgh are powered by, you guessed it, dirty stinkin coal. It is too bad that the coal industry puts so much money into misleading advertisements that say coal is a "clean and green" energy source instead investing in clean or cleaner coal technologies. We would all be better off if they did.

Green Jobs Day in Pittsburgh

I was in DC over the weekend so I missed Green Jobs Day in Pittsburgh. Khari Mosley of the League of Young Voters echos Green Jobs advocate Van Jones over at his blog Diondega 412:

Today, the mills and factories that once lined the city's three glorious rivers are gone and some say Pittsburgh's best days are behind us. I say Pittsburgh's best days could be right around the corner. I believe that we have the same type of opportunity our fore-bearers did in the 1860s and 1870s. Instead of investing in heavy rail, coal and building polluting factories, we can create a green industrial revolution that will invest in a new economy that will provide opportunity for all people, while protecting our fragile environment.

I have been called an "eternal optimist," and I hope that Pittsburgh is on the verge of its next economic revolution, but I have my reservations. It's not because of the lack of bright young entrepreneurs and support from non-profits and universities. As I mentioned in a few previous posts there are some promising young green companies in the burgh, particularly in the biofuels space, but what we are lacking is the visionary leadership from our public officials. What is the green vision for Pittsburgh? Instead of being a follower, and a laggard, we need to start thinking ahead of other cities and regions.

We need big bold ideas. Instead of touting Zip Car, which is a fine service, why don't we start a program where our Mayor and councilman use plug-in electric hybrid vehicles? We have some promising young biofuels companies here in Pittsburgh, and plenty of natural gas in our backyard - so let's start talking about converting our entire fleet of buses to both natural gas and biodiesel. Both would give the port authority a significant reduction in green house gas emissions - not to mention improve our air quality and health of our citizens. Our leaders need to take the energy and enthusiasm from people like Khari, Nate Doyno and his guys over at SCB and GTECH, and the great people over at the green building alliance, and start translating it into sound public policy that will help Pittsburgh become Cleanenergyburgh.

China for a day

I just watched Tom Friedman discussing his new book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America" on today's Meet the Press. One of the things he mentioned when discussing the book was his chapter titled "China for a day." In this chapter Friedman says he talks about how the US could push through solutions for our energy crisis if the government could just decide to go forward and do it, rather than Congress having to deal with the lobbyists and the red tape within the Washington bureaucracy. If there is one positive about China's communist government it is that when China decides to commit itself to doing things to advance good causes, they get it done.

Here in a democratic republic like the US, we can't afford to wait for the government to do its dance with the lobbyists and special interest groups and then hope that they make the right decisions on big issues like energy policy. That is why Friedman told Tom Brokaw that instead of a government sponsored Manhattan project for energy, he would rather see the "next economic revolution", what he called the ET or energy tech revolution, follow the model created by the Information Technology revolution - supporting and encouraging the start up of 100,000 companies that will attempt to solve one piece of the renewable energy problem.

I have pre-ordered the book, which is officially on the shelves tomorrow (Monday). The book sounds like it will be a hit like Friedman's other efforts. It also sounds like something the eventual President-elect needs to read between election day and their inauguration in January.

Lies at the Podium...McCain lies about his energy policy throughout RNC speech

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republicans want you to believe that they have a real plan for energy independence. They continue to denounce Obama for "opposing nuclear energy" and chant "drill drill drill" or "drill now!" whenever the topic of energy independence comes up. Regarding their distortions of Obama's position on the issue, anyone who has followed Obama's campaign or who saw the last Democratic debate with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards knows that Barack Obama was the only Democrat with a pragmatic proposal for Nuclear power. Obama has stated several times that "Nuclear power has to be part of the mix" when it comes to our long term energy policy, but that we have to figure out a plan for disposal of nuclear waste that makes more sense than shipping spent fuel on trucks and trains cross country to Nevada's Yucca Mountain (McCain supports sending Nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain). Obama does not oppose Nuclear power - but he thinks we should first devise a plan for storing waste rather than diving in and committing to build 40 something new reactors around the country.

The nuclear power lie is not the end of it by any means. Fellow energy collective member and author Joseph Romm compiled a great list of "McCain's 10 energy lies" over at the Huff Post.

Here are few good ones:

My fellow Americans, when I'm President, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much.

LIE #1: McCain has no plan to reduce oil imports -- indeed, throughout his career he has explicitly rejected every plan that might reduce oil imports substantially, including fuel economy standards, biofuels, and renewables. Heck, he even rejected the plan offered by billionaire conservative oilman T. Boone Pickens to aggressively deploy clean energy and alternative fuels over the next ten years (see The real, Luddite McCain: "The truly clean technologies don't work").

We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas.

LIE #4: McCain has fought against wind and solar and alternative energy for his entire career because he genuinely but mistakenly believes "The truly clean technologies don't work" (see "Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company" and "Why McCain hates renewables but pretends he loves them.")

She's tackled tough problems like energy independence and corruption.

LIE #9: Palin has done nothing to help achieve energy independence because there is nothing the State of Alaska can do. As Pickens and EIA and every independent expert keeps telling us, this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of.

Change we cannot afford to believe in: Sarah Palin chose to protect the oil industry over polar bears!

I've been trying to stay non-partisan on this blog but ever since the general election kicked in to gear it has become harder and harder to out of the fray since energy and environmental policy are two huge issues for this election. After last night's Republican National Convention, where Mayor Rudy Giuliani touted McCain's energy policy with shouts of "Drill drill drill!", I feel compelled to get off the sidelines. John McCain used to be the maverick of his party, as he believes that global warming and climate change are caused by man, and he says that energy independence would be a priority of his administration. However, his pandering to the oil industry and the base of his party, who think that lifting the ban on offshore drilling is the best way to ending our dependence on foreign oil, is just more of the same that we've seen throughout the Bush Cheney years - all talk and no action.

McCain's selection of Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has definitely energized the conservative wing of the Republican party - but what does it say to independent and swing voters who think energy and environmental policy should be at the top of the nation's list of priorities? Sarah Palin is a total reversal of McCain's previous positions on energy and the environment. She believes in drilling in ANWR, she does not believe that climate change is man made. She even went as far as saying that polar bears should not be on the endangered species list because protecting them may "cripple oil and gas development" in parts of Alaska. Here is the full story from this past May; the following is the key snippet on her position:

The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican

.

Thomas Friedman wrote that John McCain's turnaround on environmental issues to appease his party's conservative base leads one to wonder how he can still claim to be the candidate who will put America on the path to energy independence.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

When even George W. Bush has admitted that climate change is a result of human activity, the Republican party's claim that Sarah Palin is a reformer and an agent of change is about as believable as her claim to have been against the poster child of wasteful pork barrel spending, Alaska's "bridge to nowhere."