I want to mark July 4^th, Independence Day for Americans, by noting a few good renewable energy stories.  There are scores of these stories, all over the world, every week, and I’m just sharing what I think are some of the plums that I’ve been seeing.  Renewables are a theme I’ve visited here time and again and I don’t see any end in sight.  Daniel Yergin, one of the world’s foremost energy economists, predicted a year and a half ago that we could have an investment of as much as $7 trillion made in clean energy by 2030.

I’ve also highlighted the many “externalities” of fossil fuel and nuclear power, including the air pollution, the toxic and radioactive liquid and solid waste, the massive capital and operating costs and the extraordinary inefficiency of conversion loss in conventional central power generation, as well as the health impacts, among others.  I’ve touched on the “resource curse” too.  So, what we’re saying is let’s all of us, in the developed and the developing world, be free of these many and diverse drags on our societies.  It’s well past time.  Here are a few more ways to get at our freedom and independence.

Britain Could Be Wind and Wave Titan is the headline from the excellent “NY Times” blog, Green Inc.  The UK government-funded Carbon Trust says that “With carefully targeted subsidies and regulations, Britain could build 29 gigawatts of capacity compared to a global total of 66 gigawatts by 2020, giving it 45 percent of the offshore power market…”  More numbers on this?  $114 billion for the economy and almost 250,000 jobs from offshore wind and wave power.

We’ve looked at the exciting Desertec Concept a few times as well.  This is an idea that is rapidly gaining traction that would be a supergrid of renewable energy sources linking the Middle East and North Africa with Europe.  An article from Reuters the other day highlighted a new study from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy that says the project “…could create 240,000 German jobs and generate 2 trillion euros ($2,822 billion) worth of power by 2050.”  There is huge potential in Desertec, including the ability to power massive desalinization plants to green the Sahara.

(courtesy of Desertec Foundation)

How’s China doing with renewables?  Pretty smokin’ (pun intended) according to this from the “NYT” this past week.  There are “…six immense wind power projects now being built around China, each with the capacity of more than 16 large coal-fired power plants.”  China will have 30 gigawatts of windpower deployed by the end of 2010 - and that’s ten years ahead of their target date!  What else is so good about this?  The blistering pace at which China was building coal-fired plants is slowly down rapidly.

Solar Power Experiences Strongest Year of Growth Yet reports the venerable Worldwatch Institute.  The article discusses both solar photovoltaic (PV) and thermal.  There are very encouraging statistics here, including the fact that “Cumulative PV power installed worldwide jumped from 9,000 MW in 2007 to almost 15,000 MW in 2008.”  Here’s a chart detailing the dramatic global rise in annual production of PV cells.

(courtesy of Worldwatch Institute)

For much more on the renewables “war for independence,” visit the REN21 website.  You should also note the early, promising steps of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) which was born in Bonn in January.  It was only last week that IRENA established its new home in Abu Dhabi and chose French diplomat Hélène Pelosse as its first director-general.   The choice of Abu Dhabi is particularly interesting as it will be housed at Masdar City, the home of the exceedingly ambitious Masdar Initiative.

Big things are happening, from America to Arabia.  Maybe it’s not too late, after all, to make peace with the planet and be free from the death grip of fossil fuels.

I went to GreenBuildingsNY 2009 the other day and had a fine time. The show had everything from windows and doors, to toilets and garbage disposals, to solar PV and green roofs - and beyond. Knowledgeable vendors, great stuff. Green building, for my money, has nothing but upside. As I wrote in my article for the FPA on the international green building movement, the building and construction trade has “…111 million people directly employed with 75% employed in developing countries with the industry accounting for 10 percent of global GDP.” There is a growing emphasis on green building from groups like the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, the Clinton Climate Initiative, the World Green Building Council, UNEP’s Sustainable Buildings and Construction Initiative, the Union Internationale des Architectes and the American Institute of Architects, among thousands of other local, regional, national and international NGOs and firms.

GreenBuildingsNY 2009 was largely put together by the very good writers and editors at GreenerBuildings.com. Some of the interesting folks I spoke with at the expo included Helios Energy Systems who install solar modules, and Long Island Compost who had a hand in the exciting new High Line Park and who also work on green roof projects.

There were, to me, a surprising number of green roof specialists, including Roofscapes, Green City and GreenGrid. That this area of green building is burgeoning so is a wonderful sign. What’s in it for us? Radically reducing heating and cooling costs - and energy use, diminishing the urban heat island effect, dramatically lowering the impact of stormwater runoff in the urban environment, and, surprise, surprise, creating a whole new felicitous architectural aesthetic. Just look at the pictures at the websites of these two companies, or at this recent NGM article. Fun fact: There are over 100 million square feet of planted roofs in Europe today.

Energy companies were there, including the folks from the energy efficiency programs at National Grid and Con Edison. GDF Suez was also at the expo with some interesting takes on energy efficiency and renewables. New York State’s energy agencies were there as well. The NYS Public Service Commission has several relevant programs, including on Green Power and energy efficiency and conservation. The NYS Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) also has key programs including those on saving energy and renewables.

Energy efficiency is a recurring theme at the blog. It’s also one of the most prevalent targets for all the green stimulus packages that have been rolling out around the world. The folks at US Energy Group are focused on maximizing building energy efficiency, as are also the professionals at Sustainability Partners. There is so much bang for the buck in this - something now wholly recognized by everyone from energy policy wonks to contractors.

What other options are there for maximizing the sustainability of your new and old buildings? Lots. Paint, for instance. See this from the folks at Pittsburgh Paints. What about your cleaning products and systems? Those can have a big impact. One local vendor, Edmar, has a range of green cleaning products. Toilets and other fixtures? You bet. Moen and Kohler were there.

Green Seal, not incidentally, certifies a lot of these sorts of products and services throughout the country.

I had a nice chat with one of the folks from InSinkErator. Environmental benefits in garbage disposals? How about reducing the burden of wastes to landfills, for a starter, and then, because the organic waste is going to wastewater treatment plants, enhancing the flow of biosolids that can be put to beneficial use as fertilizer at the end of the process.

Renewable energy is never too far from my mind. Pfister Energy has a diverse portfolio of options, including architectural wind and daylighting. Wesco had a display that combines an Easco boiler with a Capstone microturbine giving 85-95% total system efficiency. You can’t beat that!

So, to make a long story short, while sustainability writers like me, and policy wonks and policymakers, and activists are all out here trying to save the planet, many of the very good folks who were at the green building expo are doing it, day by day, with increasingly greater effectiveness. Good on ya!

Deutsche Bank yesterday unveiled an enormous display outside New York’s Madison Square Garden/Penn Station complex.  What’s it show?  “The current quantity of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as shown by the Carbon Counter is 3.64 trillion metric tons, increasing by approximately 2 billion metric tons per month,” according to DB’s release.  “‘The Carbon Counter is a bold new experiment in communicating climate science to the public,’ said Ronald Prinn, Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT.”

“BNET Energy” further reports that DB has an interest, as do growing legions of investors, entrepreneurs, and bankers, in using the instruments available to us now to get emissions down.  “The company, as of March 2009, has about $4 billion under management involving climate change. Its assets include renewable energy projects in Europe and as well as a climate change fund that invests in companies involved in clean technology, energy efficiency and environmental management.  Deutsche Bank’s portfolio is merely a snapshot of the emerging climate change industry.  The carbon trading market - for example - has grown from $727 million in 2004 to $118 billion in 2008, according to a report released last month by SBI. Global carbon markets will grow 68 percent a year to $669 billion in 2013, the market research company forecasted.”

Deutsche Bank has, as noted, a series of sustainable enterprises.  Read more about them at their website, Banking on Green.  For access to the Carbon Counter on a continual basis, click here.

Photo by Brandon Barrett, courtesy of Deutsche Bank.

“From here on, the primary judgment of all human institutions, professions, programs and activities will be determined by the extent to which they inhibit, ignore or foster a mutually enhancing human-Earth relationship.”  This is what Thomas Berry said in an interview a few years back, as quoted in his recent “NY Times” obituary.  Berry was a profound and influential voice calling humankind back to its natural relationship with the earth and the cosmos.  Andy Revkin, who wrote the obit, had more to say at his blog with quotes from a number of others, including Bill McKibben saying that Berry’s work went “…straight to the heart of how we understood ourselves, and that our traditions would have to bend to reflect those new understandings.”

I’ve been a working environmentalist for more than 25 years but I haven’t always stopped to delve deeply into the work and writing of some of the visionaries who’ve brought us - in my opinion - to the brink of learning how to live in peace with our planet and ourselves.  I’ll be teaching a class on the history of the American environmental movement this coming fall and so I will be thinking a lot more about some of these great souls like Thoreau, Muir, Leopold, Dubos, Brower and Berry.  I’ve had the good fortune to know Barry Commoner, however briefly, but I’ll enjoy learning more about these others.  For more on Thomas Berry, go to his foundation’s website.

On a similar note, I referenced the “FT” columnist, Harry Eyres, in this post several months back:  A Different View of Freedom.  He had a column the other day, The sour smell of excess, that riffs on frugality.  Imagine!  He notes a recent report, Prosperity without Growth?, from the UK government’s Sustainable Development Commission on forging a new economic system in the wake of the recent world economic meltdown.  The report, by Tim Jackson, has, according to Eyres, “…a verve and passion you would not expect from a government-sponsored initiative.”  Eyres writes that “…daringly, Jackson questions the shibboleth of economic growth and the potentially destructive way in which the ‘profit motive stimulates a continual search by producers for newer, better and cheaper products and services,’ and a restless desire on the part of consumers to purchase those products and services. The resulting ‘iron cage of consumerism’ is neither environmentally sustainable nor humanly sustaining.”  (This certainly echoes “The Story of Stuff” - see post from Wednesday just below.)

Green Roofs - I have seen the future and it works.  (Well, in the case of the Soviet Union, it didn’t, but with green roofs, it definitely does and will.)  I’ve written before on this unbeatable approach to lowering the urban heat island effect, diminishing the troublesome problem of stormwater runoff, and providing a stunningly effective insulating layer, among other felicitous outcomes, here and, more recently, here, for instance.

The excellent “GreenerBuildings.com” has an encouraging article, Green Roofs Show Big Growth in U.S., Canada.  Some big news includes the fact that Toronto has “…adopted a mandatory green roof law yesterday, requiring 50 percent of the area of all new roofs be covered with greenery.”  See more at the article and from Green Roofs for Healthy Cities.

More Inside Baseball - The “Washington Post” had this about how Barack Obama really started to zero in on energy policy and climate change last summer.  How has he framed the issues to get some positraction?  He and his team have “…made them pop by packaging them as ways to create ‘green’ jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on imports of foreign oil.”  He’s also blitzed the Congress and industry with diplomacy to marshal some of the critical political backing that’s necessary for the breakthroughs that are needed.  For instance, the article reports that “…many environmentalists and corporate executives have praised the White House for taking a pragmatic approach to negotiations over the cap-and-trade bill. Duke Energy chief executive James E. Rogers, who promoted free allowances for local electricity firms, said Obama understands the need to protect key industries, states and consumers, and he praised energy and climate czar Carol M. Browner for marshalling congressional support without dictating terms.”  (See also next item immediately below.)

I’ve written about the Obama Administration a fair number of times in the past six months, so it’s good to get a little look inside how they’ve operating and how they’ve come to their thinking.

The Wonk Zone - Here is a slightly difficult bit of political economy from Harvard’s Robert Stavins:   The Wonderful Politics of Cap-and-Trade: A Closer Look at Waxman-Markey.  As he says at the outset:  “The headline of this post is not meant to be ironic.”  Why?  Because “…the political process of states, districts, sectors, firms, and interest groups fighting for their share of the pie (free allowance allocations) serves as the mechanism whereby a political constituency in support of the system is developed, but without detrimental effects to the system’s environmental or economic performance.  That’s the good news, and it should never be forgotten.”

Professor Stavins also makes clear that the deal on allocating allowances that was struck in the Energy and Commerce Committee is certainly not the corporate free lunch that many have characterized it as being.  He says “…the totals become 79.9% for consumers and public purposes versus 20.1% for private industry, or approximately 80% versus 20% - the opposite of the ‘80% free allowance corporate give-away’ featured in many press and blogosphere accounts. Moreover, because some of the allocations to private industry are - for better or for worse - conditional on recipients undertaking specific costly investments, such as investments in carbon capture and storage, part of the 20% free allocation to private industry should not be viewed as a windfall.”

The economics are the wonky bit here, not so much the politics, but it might be worth it for you to work through the article.  As is so often the case, the comments - and the responses by Stavins - are quite informative.

Major Economies Forum (MEF) on Energy and Climate - After the second of four meetings scheduled to take place among the world’s major economies - all major contributors to global warming - the participants announced progress on finance.  The 2^nd MEF meeting took place this week in Paris.  (See my notes from April on the first meeting.)  This article from AFP quotes French Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo:  “We made progress on a major subject, which is finance and financial architecture. It’s not final, but one feels that there is a real consensus.”  Todd Stern, America’s top climate diplomat, was also enthusiastic.  He said that there was interest in a “Green Fund” proposed by Mexico last year.  In this Reuters article, Stern says that on policy “The United States is proposing to make a seismic change.”  Next stop for the MEF?  Mexico from June 22 to 23.  The nations’ leaders will then gather together in Italy in July to further flesh out their views and seek some further consensus.  (In the meantime, the UNFCCC will hold more preparatory meetings for Copenhagen starting next week in Bonn.  See also the UNFCCC newsletter for May.)

Nobel Laureate Symposium - In London, a meeting took place this week of Nobelists and top climate change experts.  The underlying theme was “the fierce urgency of now…”  Participants included Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC; Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy; Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt movement; and Lord Nicholas Stern, leader of the UK’s seminal “Stern Review on the economics of climate change.”  The release from the conference, hosted by Prince Charles and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said “…60 leading scientists from various disciplines, among them more than 20 Nobel Laureates, will discuss the dimensions of the climate crisis and innovative strategies for solutions.”  The Potsdam Institute said “Major items of the agenda will be measures to counter deforestation, the development and implementation of new technologies, the options to establish a low-carbon energy infrastructure, as well as the role of global and national economic and political frameworks.”  Secretary Chu had an op-ed in the “Times of London” detailing many of the Obama administration’s new initiatives.  He wrote that “…Obama has a real and deep commitment to putting America on a sustainable energy path. Energy is a signature issue of his Administration, and, with his leadership, we have a great moment of possibility for meeting our global economic, energy and climate challenges.”

Chu also had some noteworthy remarks, reported by the “Independent,” prior to the conference that true with what I was discussing last week on the engineer’s axiom, KISS.  Chu specifically says that we could get a huge bang for the buck in simply painting roofs and other surfaces white.  “If that building is air-conditioned, it’s going to be a lot cooler, it can use 10 or 15 per cent less electricity.  You also do something in that you change the albedo of the Earth - you make it more reflective. So the sunlight comes down and it actually goes back up - there is no greenhouse effect.”  KISS, baby, KISS.

World Business Summit on Climate Change - Meanwhile, the Copenhagen Climate Council hosted this congregation of business leaders and climate change nabobs earlier this week.  The UNSG, Ban Ki-moon, revved up the participants, urging them to action.  In his speech, he told them “With your support, and through your example, we must harness the necessary political will to seal the deal on an ambitious new climate agreement in December here in Copenhagen.”  Other high-profile speakers included Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, and José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, as well as Tim Flannery, Chairman, Copenhagen Climate Council.

What’s the pitch?  “The Copenhagen Call” which sets out the elements the global business community believes are necessary for an effective treaty to be finalized in December:

1. Agreement on a science-based greenhouse gas stabilization path with 2020 and 2050 emissions reduction targets that will achieve it;
2. Effective measurement, reporting and verification of emissions performance by business;
3. Incentives for a dramatic increase in financing low emissions technologies;
4. Deployment of existing low-emissions technologies and the development of new ones;
5. Funds to make communities more resilient and able to adapt to the effects of climate change, and
6. Means to finance forest protection.

Great stuff!  With all this activity - between the business leaders, the scientists and the government leaders, not to mention the driving force of the NGOs - we may yet get something with teeth coming out of Washington this fall, Copenhagen in December, and the rest of the world as we progress.

That’s how I’d paraphrase the old Bill Clinton internal campaign motto in the context of the present-day campaign to get an American law into place to combat GHGs.  I’ve written about cap-and-trade and the Carbon Markets dozens of times here, including on the cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax debate.  For an interesting look at the history of this debate, see this “NY Times” article from the other day.  What you need to know about the support for cap-and-trade is that it “…has been embraced by President Obama, Democratic leaders in Congress, mainstream environmental groups and a growing number of business interests, including energy-consuming industries like autos, steel and aluminum.”

Paul Krugman has another great column today on the subject.  What you have to remember about Krugman, aside from his being a progressive commentator and a Nobel laureate in economics, is that he’s a teacher.  He’s got a gift for explaining abstruse concepts like….well, cap-and-trade.  What I remind my students is that the most important word in the phrase is “cap.”  I tell them that Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said, in speaking of the last President, that he “…has refused to accept the only path that’s ever solved an air pollution problem - and that’s mandatory legal limits.”  With a cap, we can steer toward a quantifiable diminution in GHG emissions.  That’s what we need and that’s what we can get.

Krugman says that Waxman-Markey “…would limit greenhouse gases by requiring polluters to receive or buy emission permits, with the number of available permits - the ‘cap’ in ‘cap and trade’ - gradually falling over time.”  One of the objections from environmentalists with the present state of the bill is that it gives away too many of the permits, rather than auctioning all of them as President Obama and most environmental groups would prefer.  But Krugman, as I often do, tells us not to make “…the perfect the enemy of the good.”

Even with some allocation of free permits, we’re still going to be moving significantly toward lowering our GHG output.  “Now, these handouts wouldn’t undermine the policy’s effectiveness. Even when polluters get free permits, they still have an incentive to reduce their emissions, so that they can sell their excess permits to someone else.”  It’s worked on the acid rain precursor, sulfur dioxide, and it will work for carbon dioxide.

Not incidentally, if you think the American public doesn’t want this, as some folks would have you think, well that dog just don’t hunt.  See Americans support climate action: Polls from carbonpositive, an Australian-based news service and agro-forestry enterprise.  See also this from “US News & World Report.”  77 percent of voters favor action.

Those polled reflect the views of nearly all environmentalists, climate scientists, and hundreds of millions of others around the planet.  Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill put it this way:  “I never worry about action, but only inaction.”

I just wanted to flag what I thought were some pretty good items out and about in the media lately.

China and Climate Change - One of the go-to guys for progressive economics, Paul Krugman, has a column today, Empire of Carbon, that is both pessimistic and optimistic.  (Boy, do I know that feeling when it comes to climate change!)  The bad news is that China is going to swamp the climate system with its coal-generated CO₂ if it stays on the trajectory it’s on now.  China doubled its output from 1996 to 2006, making it the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases last year.  Krugman gives a good précis here of the arguments that China makes for not changing course.  But, if the US, EU and other big developed economies throttle back our emissions - and there’s reason to believe it’s happening and will continue to happen (see last post below, among others) - then the Chinese and the other rapidly industrializing nations should have no excuse not to get on board.

The good news, according to Krugman, is “…that the very inefficiency of China’s energy use offers huge scope for improvement. Given the right policies, China could continue to grow rapidly without increasing its carbon emissions.”  Can you say renewables and energy efficiency?  It’s all there, just for the taking.

What if China and others don’t play ball?  “Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports.”  I think China will play ball.  For my reasons for thinking this, see China and Trade here.  As Krugman puts it:  “It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.”

(For more on China and climate change, see the FPA blog on China.)

More on Cap-and-Trade - See this recent column from Krugman and this editorial from the “NY Times.”  Both are unequivocal in support of cap-and-trade.  Krugman notes “…a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation:  It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.”

The Smart Grid - Here’s a great article from the “Financial Times” on the intersection of the smart grid and information technology.  There are huge business opportunities and the IT folks are all over that.  As the reporter says, “An unlikely marriage is being consummated. On one side is a monolithic industry, cautious, highly regulated and focused on ubiquity, reliability and affordability. On the other is an aggressively competitive sector with rapid product cycles and an insatiable hunger for innovation.”  It could turn out to be the proverbial “marriage made in heaven.”

Geoengineering - This is one of my least favorite of the red herrings being brought to you today by concern over the looming climate change crisis - see also nuclear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS).  A recent story in the FT series on Climate Change focused on this approach:  “altering the Earth’s systems.”  Giant sunshades in space, seeding the atmosphere with sulfur, making clouds at sea - all ideas, among others, that are advancing, in spite of the incredible costs involved and the potential to wreak even more havoc than the warming these schemes are intended to abate.  I was a little surprised - and alarmed - to learn that White House science advisor, John Holdren, said recently that geoengineering should not be “off the table.”

The pursuit of geoengineering is a considerable distraction to us in seeking to make the transition to a zero-carbon, sustainable world economy.  As Alex Steffen, the guiding hand at Worldchanging, wrote in February:  “Our goal should be to cool the planet in ways that reinforce and restore the resilience of its natural systems.”  In a book I’ve just reviewed, one of the authors says:  “If our goal is to produce a sustainable society, then to a certain extent, we will eventually need to mimic (and possibly enhance) natural systems.”

Speaking of Nukes … - I often watch some of the excellent C-Span programming during my lunch break.  (Am I a policy nerd or what?)  I just caught Exelon CEO John Rowe at the National Press Club talking about his company’s main product:  nuclear power.  According to their website, “Exelon operates the largest nuclear fleet in the United States, the third largest commercial nuclear fleet in the world, and is generating nuclear energy more efficiently than ever.” Mr. Rowe seems like a genuinely thoughtful and nice fellow.  One thing he said caught my attention:  Until we have a plan in place to store waste in the long term, then we ought “to go slow” on expanding nuclear power.  (These comments appear toward the end of the video, during the Q&A.  Start around 51:25.)

Waste is but one of several major concerns about nuclear power.  For a really in-depth and smart analysis from folks who’ve been studying nuclear power for decades, see Nuclear Power in a Warming World from the Union of Concerned Scientists.  I used this as a reading in my climate change class and it’s informative and useful.

A deal has been done between the Democrats in the House driving for a strong, aggressive, meaningful climate change and energy bill and those who are fearful for and/or protective of the special interests of the big utilities, the oil & gas industry, the auto manufacturers and some other heavy industries.  The “discussion draft” of the bill that Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, chair of the Energy and Environment subcommittee, released at the end of March pointed toward some quantum leaps forward, but left the famous 600-pound gorilla at liberty:  the question of whether to auction GHG-pollution allocations or make them freebies.  The deal lets a percentage of these be distributed for free.

This advisory from the Energy and Commerce Committee describes the allocation of allowances provision to “major energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries.”  Waxman said:  “We are establishing strong protections to ensure America’s industrial capacity can thrive without being disadvantaged by overseas competition.”  There are also agreements for protecting the auto industry and on renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards.  Markey said of the latter agreement, “This clean energy standard will increase the power we use from the sun, wind, and earth, all without increasing electricity prices.”  Here is a useful “factbox” from Reuters on the bill.

These provisions are not as strong as many might like.  (That includes me.)  The renewables and efficiency standard, for instance, is a combined standard:  “By 2020, utilities would be required to obtain 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources and demonstrate annual electricity savings of 5% from energy efficiency measures.”  Others, the EU notably, are shooting higher.  The EU has called for 20% of power from renewables and a 20% increase in efficiency by 2020, along with a 20% reduction of GHG (from 1990 levels).  Too bad the EU thinks it can do that and the US doesn’t.

The full committee is going into session next week to finalize this bill.  Speaker Pelosi wants the legislation passed this year.  President Obama had nothing but praise for the work of the Energy and Commerce Committee.  See this from Greenwire via the “NY Times.”  Obama said “I want to take a moment … just to congratulate Chairman Waxman and the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats, who’ve made such extraordinary progress in reaching a deal on comprehensive energy reform and climate legislation.”  The Senate, of course, is going to be a whole other kettle of fish.

One of the top analysts on climate change and energy, Joe Romm, had a thorough analysis, in two parts, of the draft legislation.  Paraphrasing Stanley Kubrick, he writes, courtesy of the indispensable Worldchanging, about “How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Waxman-Markey,” Part 1 and Part 2.  (You should also check out Romm’s provocative I Predict U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Peaked In 2007! I hope he’s right.)

I think there is some considerable reason to be optimistic, not only on federal legislation, but on the whole clean energy gestalt.  I have noted, over the past two years plus at this blog, that there are startling technological, business and political breakthroughs happening all over the place, all the time.  I do think this extends to the sociological in that people are finally starting to get sustainability.  I do think we’re getting there and moving this particular critical bit of legislation forward is a great step.  Let’s get this thing passed in the House and then concentrate on the Senate.  It will take a lot of will power but it’s there and just needs to be tapped and properly focused.  Hey, that’s not unlike what we need to do on renewable energy.  Coincidence?

The Financial Times had a great series of articles the other day in a special report on Energy-Efficient Buildings.  The FT team on this, led by environmental reporter Fiona Harvey, covers topics from design, climate-proofing, and microgeneration to supply chains and waste reduction.  Look at the interactive graphic, as an amuse gul:  a blueprint for sustainability.

Even the ads are cool.  One is from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) describing some of the findings in the new report from their four-year, $15 million Efficiency in Buildings research project, which they describe as “the most rigorous study ever conducted on the subject.”  Their release says the central message of the study is “…energy use in buildings can be cut by 60 percent by 2050 - essential to meeting global climate change targets - but this will require immediate action to transform the building sector.”

Meanwhile, over at the New York Times today, there’s a special section on the Business of Green:  Smarter Tools.  Matt Wald and Kate Galbraith lead the reporting here with articles on the smart grid, advances in solar PV, ocean power, and improving the performance of aircraft, among other topics.  There’s a nice smorgasbord of graphics, slide shows, and a podcast - the entertaining and informative “Back Story” feature.  (I’ve had some articles out there my ownself on the smart grid and on sustainability at airports.)

Get over to these special reports and dig in for some truly edifying stuff.