Debates are underway in the United States as contenders seek the Republican party nomination to challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Last week’s debate was the first for Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose front-runner status appeared to take a slip to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney following controversial remarks on social security. All eyes will be on the two rivals again as the candidates face off tonight at the “Tea Party Republican Debate” in Tampa. While the media have focused on the candidates’ positions on social security, job creation and the economy, environmental policy has featured prominently as well, with most of the candidates attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) role as the country’s environmental regulator.

Most prominent is the view that environmental protection and regulation prevents job creation, as articulated by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a letter to Republican Party members calling to fight 10 “job-destroying regulations.” Seven out of those 10 are EPA rules. U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann and Perry have both referred to the EPA as a “job killer,” while Romney has said that regulation is holding the economy back. Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and businessman Herman Cain, as well as Perry, say no new regulations should be passed in this economy because they will hurt job creation.

In time for tonight’s debate, we briefly summarize each candidate’s current positions and past records on the environment.

Rick Perry
Rick Perry has a record of controversial statements. He has compared himself to Galileo because he feels “out-voted” for his belief that climate science is not yet “settled,” and has defended his comment that the 2010 BP oil spill was an “act of God.” His record, however, is consistent with his views: he has fought the EPA for years from Texas, and is currently leading a lawsuit against its greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann may have not featured as prominently in the last Republican debate as did Perry or Romney, but has made many headlines with her controversial views. She has said she would repeal some environmental regulations and close down the EPA except for conservation, a statement which fits with her view that climate change is a “hoax” but does not make sense given that other departments are designed to deal with conservation, such as the Department of the Interior. A believer in small government, her record indicates she is against public investment in renewable energy.

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney’s statements on the environment tend to be more moderate than the other candidates. For example, he supports some regulation for safety reasons while allowing for more domestic production of all energy sources, from oil to nuclear (he also supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Romney is the only candidate other than Huntsman who has consistently accepted climate change. He does not, however, believe that greenhouse gas should be regulated by the EPA, as was decided in the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA.  In 2004, he supported an emissions reduction plan for Massachusetts, but in 2006, decided not to support a similar plan because of high costs.

Jon Huntsman
Jon Huntsman is the strongest environmental advocate in the group. He famously tweeted that he believes in the scientists on climate change, he signed Utah into the Western Climate Initiative as the state’s former governor, and he is the only candidate who supported cap-and-trade policies to limit carbon emissions. These actions, however, as well as his moderate positions on other issues, have not helped his candidacy, which may be dying. He now says cap-and-trade has not worked and that he would wait until the economy improves before supporting it again.

Herman Cain
Herman Cain supports a mix of energy sources, from fossil-fuel based to renewables such as wind. He also, however, supports expanded offshore drilling areas, including in the ANWR. Like Bachmann and Ron Paul, he doesn’t believe in climate change and did not support the Lieberman-Warner bill on cap-and-trade legislation.  He wants to give regulatory powers to independent groups that include oil company leaders.

Ron Paul
Ron Paul supports all kinds of energy production, including offshore drilling and renewables, but prefers tax incentives over subsidies. He believes in measures to reduce pollution, such as energy efficient vehicles, but he is against federal government regulation of the oil industry. Paul voted against cap and trade, both because he is against regulation and also because he believes it would cause jobs to move away from America.  Like Bachmann and Gingrich, he would dismantle the EPA, preferring that environmental protection and solutions occur through private property rights, the courts, and private enterprise.

Rick Santorum
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum dismisses climate change as “junk science.” He has consistently voted against an increase in renewable energy and regulations for cleaner air, and has supported a limit increase on mercury emissions from power plants.

Newt Gingrich
The environmental views of former speaker Newt Gingrich are mixed. While he spoke out against the Waxman-Markey climate bill and currently opposes EPA regulation of carbon, he has also supported programs that reduce carbon emissions, including providing incentives for carbon sequestration technology development. His latest statements include his desire to shut down the EPA and rename it the Environmental Solutions Agency.

Is the opposition to the EPA by most of these candidates genuine or part of the Tea Party script designed to appeal to voters and distinguish them from their peers, as some speculate?

Whether a political or economic calculation, or a combination thereof, some experts believe that such controversial statements will not win the nomination, especially following the Tea Party’s heavily criticized, stringent views during the debt ceiling debate. If that is so, a candidate such as Romney may have a stronger chance of winning the leadership than Perry, despite criticisms from Tea Party loyalists or others – unless, that is, Perry’s job-killing statements grow in popularity. As a follow up to this question, I will look more in depth at the link between environmental regulation and job creation in my next article.

Building a wind turbine (image by: Bill Ward)

Financial assistance and green collar apprenticeships are two of the pillars of regional policy in New South Wales (NSW) aimed at encouraging the education and training people will need to succeed in the emerging green economy.

In my previous post on skills shortages, I noted that we do not have time to wait for favourable policies that will facilitate the transition and so should encourage grass roots initiatives focussed on training workers in different sectors. At the same time, we must not ignore the progressive policies that are being developed and implemented more quickly in some parts of the world, the exceptions that will bolster the grass-roots initiatives. The regional policies in NSW are a case in point.

The need for change in training and education varies greatly across countries, sectors and occupations. For example, training for many jobs in sectors such as energy, construction and manufacturing will be fundamentally transformed while environmental components will be integrated into the existing education for more generic or cross-sector jobs in consulting, risk management or IT. Some adjustments will be made in response to new technologies or government regulations while others will be made to meet demand in new markets.

Researchers at the International Labour Organisation and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training found that skills shortages exist for a number of reasons including a critical lack of scientists and engineers in both developing and developed countries, national education systems that cannot meet demand for green skills, underestimated growth for example in low carbon technologies and the low status of certain occupations in many countries.

The NSW Department of Education and Training has a ‘Green Skills and Energy Efficiency Strategy’ that provides subsidies for ‘accredited training that improves the environmental impacts of NSW business operations, products and services’. Businesses in sectors such as energy, construction, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality and health can access the subsidised training.

Owners and managers, as well as workers and job seekers, can take a range of courses, for example in the design, installation and running of energy efficient technology, the delivery and marketing of environmentally-friendly goods and services, or the assessment of energy, water and resources use and savings. The formal training component for NSW apprenticeships and traineeships is free and individuals can receive additional assistance with travel and accommodation, or help for those who lost their jobs in the economic downturn.

Case studies bring to life the benefits of filling skills gaps in a variety of business activities from organic macadamia farming to resource-efficient printing to environmentally-friendly real estate development. They also highlight the need for staff engagement on all levels from owners to managers to workers.

This is the second in a series of posts that will explore different aspects of the challenge we face in providing the education and training for jobs in the low-carbon green economy. If the subject is of interest to you, don’t forget to check back over the next few weeks for further installments.

The UK Government has claimed to become the ‘Greenest Ever Government’ since the previous Labour and Conservative leadership.

Following the announcement of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill during the Queen’s Speech on 25 May 2010, David Cameron (Prime Minister) promised the country that he would lead the UK to become a low carbon economy through enhanced energy efficiency and low-carbon energy production, both of which remains to be seen.

The previous labour government had committed a total of £405 million towards promoting a green economy, of which the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) was a large arm of this delivery.  The SDC has made £70m savings every year through implementing a number of Green Initiatives.  The SDC also claims that additional savings of £350m per year through improvements in energy, water, waste, recycling and transport will also be met, regardless of funding, over the next five years.

However, recent announcements of funding cuts have led to the SDC to be axed.  The Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Caroline Spelman has led the cuts, whilst at the same time calling for the Government to ‘step up’ its green ambitions and drive further energy savings.  This contradictory view was not shared by the Chair of the SDC, who is simply disappointed at the announcement.

Many more cuts are on the way.  The budget led by George Osborne on 22 June had created a sense of hope and expectation that concrete energy policies were on the way, but these hopes were simply not met.  Instead, Osborne made slight references to climate change policies, but the lack of detail on policies, financial plans and commitments were heavily noted.

The government’s commitment to renewables has also come under question, with the Micropower Council saying that it is stalling on the introduction of the Renewable Heat incentive (RHI), which would pay householders for generating low carbon heat.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) issued a report yesterday suggesting that a commitment of £10 billion is needed, for investments in pre-construction off-shore wind farm technology if the UK is to meet its renewables electricity target of 30% by 2020. Capital funding for projects is critical to ensure that the UK invests in renewable projects.  The budget announcement was Osborne’s golden opportunity to make the Energy savings the government has promised to deliver.

To add to the frustration, the delay of implementing existing energy policies are being felt in most areas of the UK, particularly in terms of cost and uncertainty for business.

The six month delays to the October introduction date for the Part L changes, which are designed to make homes 25% more energy efficient, are causing losses in both carbon and heating bill savings.  It has emerged that the programme is still subject to approval by the government.

Perhaps more pressing are the delays to the most radical policy which involves defining a replacement for the electricity component of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) by adding a ‘top up carbon tax’ on power generators. This would be a way to establish a carbon ‘floor price’ which is needed to support carbon trading in the EU ETS scheme, which is a major part of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill commitment.

MP Caroline Lucas has published a statement today arguing that ‘now is the time to invest’, but lack of government financial commitment and delays to current programmes is painting a gloomy outlook at the moment.  Is the UK really committed to becoming the ‘greenest ever government’ as promised at the start of the Coalition?

Rendering of US city under water – by TERRA-Dreams (SoftPIX_Techie)

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. In the 2009 poll, Gallup surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone. The results found that forty-one percent of Americans doubted the severity of global warming as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, the environmental poll found a record-breaking 16 percent of Americans reported that they believed the effects of global warming will never occur.

Gallup Analyst Lydia Saad comments that, “Americans generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.”

Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues to be concerned about in the poll. Of highest concern to Americans surveyed was the pollution of drinking water – pulling in 84 percent of the votes. While Americans tend to believe that global warming is real, only 34% surveyed felt that they worry “a great deal” about the issue.

The annual environmental poll shows this drop in public concern across several measures. Global warming not only ranks last among the percentage of Americans concerned either a “great deal” or a “fair amount”, global warming is the only issue to have seen a significant decrease in public concern over the past year.

What could have caused such an increase in global warming doubters?

Global warming has received a great deal of attention this past decade due to debates regarding the Kyoto Protocol and former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. However, in this past year, the global warming message may have lost some of its ground with Americans. Given the economic downturn, it is possible that some of the public concern for global warming has turned toward pressing economic issues. Additionally, other factors may also be contributing to the dampening of the global warming message.

The recent elections in the United States could have had some effect on issue. The number of Republicans to believe that global warming media coverage is exaggerated has continuously increased since 1997. However, the 2009 environmental poll also reveals an increase in independent voters agreeing with the Republicans doubters.

Heightened politicization of issues leading up to the elections – including the concern over global warming – may have altered American beliefs on the subject. Additionally, an abundant number of debates over drilling in Alaska, renewable energy and the necessity for climate change legislation may have increased public fatigue over topics related to global warming. Therefore, next year’s survey will be of further importance to determine whether the increased number of global warming doubters in America is a reaction to unique circumstances or a trend that will continue into the future.

Everyone has groaned in this recession, and with good reason, but on the political front environmentalists groaned a little harder. 2008  seemed a good year as Governments began to cast their eyes towards more comprehensive policy approaches to tackling Climate Change. But green dreams received a shock to the system as the recession hit and political capital for environmental projects dropped as fast (and not surprisingly) as the stock markets.

To some, the decline in enthusiasm was not unreasonable, governments are judged on short time frames between elections and restoring economic growth as easily and risk-free as possible is always going to take precedent over potentially expensive policy initiatives on Climate change. Canada’s Environment minister Jim Prentice confirmed as much when he said the Government would not pursue environmental policy to the detriment of the economy. But in Ontario, there is a bold exception to this pattern, Ontario has announced not merely that it will fight the recession (as everyone is doing), or that it will include some green measures (as some are doing) but that in the Green Energy Act, it will fight the recession by putting environmental measures as the solution, not an added bonus, not a burden.

Everything about this act is remarkable, but let’s start with its timing; the bill, currently in process, was proposed on 28^th February, the heart of the recession. The brainchild of Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty and Deputy Premier George Smitherman the bill has a threefold purpose:

1. To arrest rising unemployment in Ontario by creating 50,000 “green” jobs within three years

2. A large scale effort to stimulate the renewable energy industry

3. To implement conservation and energy savings measures across Ontario.

Although the bill uses many of the usual approaches, certain aspects mark it out as exceptional, other than its timing. A core strength of the bill, is its comprehensive approach, rather than pass a number of small policy initiatives  to tackle certain environmental issues sector by sector, the Green Energy Act is a head on approach. Take for example conservation: the bill would require mandatory energy audits of properties and conservation targets for utility companies – and conservation is only one part of the bill.

The holistic approach has advantages over the smaller one, while introducing change at a greater rate gives the economy less time to adjust, it also underscores the Ontario Government’s resolve to make the environment a core part of the Ontario;s future economy, providing a clear vision of the future will be vital to encourage investment.

This is powerfully underlined in the most radical part of the bill, the “right to connect”, which would make it mandatory for utilities companies to connect to the grid, renewable energy projects ( subject to economic and technical requirements).

As George Vegh, a Toronto energy lawyer, writes:

“The most important thing about the Green Energy Act is that it is not about energy as a supply resource; it is about energy as a contributor to environmental and social outcomes”

This is embodied in the “right to connect”, this framed in deliberate terms to underlines the potential for the individuals to participate, it could precipitate a paradigm shift in the way Governments approach energy in the 21^st century, favouring decentralised grids, even at the likely at least in the short term higher energy costs, from the expense of expanding and presumably upgrading the grid, to the loss of economy of scale power supplies.

The bill would also entail greater regulation in the demand for conservation measure, while not all targets will necessarily be mandatory, the bill’s demand for wide-reaching regulation would see direct intervention of the Government in key markets such as property and the growing shift in values that underline public policy that increasingly see energy issues as public values.

The bill unsurprisingly is not without its critics, Terence Corcoran, provides a vociferous overview of its implications. Regardless of whether you agree with him, Corcoran underlines some salient details about this bill. Some of the important aspects are whether strong decentralisation of power utilities are desirable or whether they will be harder to regulate their upkeep and maintenance, more prone to regional weather variations could make them less efficient. Most importantly is that energy costs will significantly rise, from connection to grid costs, potential instability in renewable markets, such as steel shortages to weather problems creating downturns in electricity, backups will probably be required. Explaining Ontario’s decision to press ahead with a nuclear power plant. Whether the added regulation is the best way to promote energy conservation and to what extent economic growth is truly compatible with environmental policy.

While these remain key issues, nothing should detract from this bill it is a landmark in legislation, and a further example of the capacity of State legislation to tackle Climate Change at a serious level. It should not be forgotten, Ontario has already targeted a 15% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, the phasing out of coal by 2014 and in 2008 already sources 25% of its energy from renewable sources . It is perhaps another reminder of Prime Minister Harper’s failure to address Climate change on a national level, that has led to a slew of state initiatives, of which Ontario is a leader.