A common last-ditch claim by global warming skeptics (once they’ve conceded that the climate is changing and we’re to blame) is that taking action is simply too expensive. But study after study has found that the costs of inaction are astronomical, whereas investing in solutions today will help, not hurt, the economy. So it’s appropriate that, as Wall Street ends a roller-coaster week, our partner 1Sky is gearing up to release a summary of recent reports on green jobs.

Green jobs are well-paid, career-track jobs that contribute to preserving or enhancing environmental quality. These jobs are automatically created during the transition from an economy based on coal, oil, and other fossil fuels to one based on efficiency and clean renewable energy. Many are impossible to outsource - imagine shipping a building to China to be retrofitted with better insulation and energy-efficient lighting! Green jobs in the manufacturing sector have the potential to revitalize demand for skilled workers in rust-belt towns, while jobs retrofitting buildings or installing and maintaining solar panels could provide pathways out of poverty to millions in cities. Demand for low-carbon fuels and electricity will create jobs in rural areas. College graduates will start and join companies in a growing environmental services industry.

1Sky’s summary isn’t available for download yet, but the kicker should come as no surprise: investing in energy efficiency and clean, renewable technologies is our best bet for forestalling a two-fold climate and economic crisis. It will bring growth, green jobs, economic stability, and, oh yeah, a healthier environment and hospitable climate.

Here’s a preview of what’s inside the forthcoming report:

• Paul Volcker, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve under President Reagan, says that unless we curb global warming “the economy will go down the drain in the next thirty years”

• Existing building efficiency opportunities could boost energy productivity the equivalent of 64 million barrels of oil per day - almost 150% of current total US energy consumption.

• Although transitional assistance will be necessary, there are more than enough green jobs to offset inevitable job losses in energy industries.

• Incentives for low-carbon fuels and electricity could create over 5 million new jobs in rural areas by 2030.

• Inadequate training and workforce skills is currently one of the primary obstacles to developing renewable energy and energy efficiency.

• Areas hardest-hit by recent manufacturing job losses are well-positioned to take advantage of new green jobs producing solar cells, wind turbine blades, and other components that currently need to be imported.

The full report will be available soon from www.1sky.org

-Ian

All of us staffers are huge fans of the BBC’s Planet Earth series. Fighting climate change can be such an uphill battle that it’s always rejuvenating to be reminded of what we’re fighting for. Watching this series is one of our favorite ways to stay focused on the fight. I’ll let narrator David Attenborough explain it in his words:

This new series is more a celebration of our planet, not a lament about the state of it. It shows what is still there.

We’ve been so consistently inspired by this show that we want to share it with all of you. So, starting today, just sign up for a card, use it once for a qualifying purchase, and we’ll put the DVD in the mail for you. (Already have a card? Get one of your friends to apply and then watch their copy )

We really hope you’ll find it as inspiring as we do.

-The Brighter Planet team

It’s all systems go with the Wray School District wind turbine project. The malfunctioning power converter that caused the delay in operations has been replaced and the turbine is operating as expected.

-Patti

The Wray School District wind turbine, one of the projects in our portfolio, has been in the news the past week. NativeEnergy reports a mid-August outlook to replace a faulty power converter and get the wind turbine fully operational. And check out the interesting read in the Rocky Mountain News for perspectives from Carbonfund.org, one of NativeEnergy’s competitors.

We’re passionate about fighting climate change. We’re also realists and know that problems like this faulty electrical part can happen, especially in these early days of the American renewable energy movement. We need to make sure we’re adaptive to the inevitable hiccups in schedule but unflichingly rigorous when it comes to absolutes like additionality and project permenance. Our “Belt, suspenders, velcro and crazy glue” approach might sound a little overboard, but when it comes to these issues, we don’t mess around.

We’re going to monitor the Wray project closely over the next few weeks as the part is fixed and the project comes online. Watch this space for more updates.

-Patti

The trouble with public transit is that it’s so sporadic - at least in rural areas.

I’m trying to get from Middlebury, VT to New York City this weekend to visit some friends. I couldn’t find anyone to share a ride down with, but I don’t want to drive alone. I can get a ride back with a friend, and it would be a pain to deal with a car in the city. That leaves three options to weigh: plane, bus, or train.

Now here’s the rub: I have to be in Manhattan at 5:30 pm Saturday to meet my friends for dinner. But I have a doctor’s appointment in Middlebury at 11:00 am Friday. Seems like it shouldn’t be a problem, right? Let’s see.

It’s 275 miles from Middlebury to New York. If I drove, I could leave Saturday morning and be in New York 5 hours later. In a Prius getting 50 mpg I’d use 5.5 gallons of gasoline, which would cost $23 and emit 110 lbs of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). In a fleet-average gasoline car getting 23.4 mpg, the trip would use 11.75 gallons of gas, cost $50, and emit 235 lbs CO2e. Offsetting the emissions for either car would increase the cost by about 3%.

For most people, flying is probably the second go-to after driving for a trip of this length. I could fly out of Burlington Saturday morning and be in New York 90 minutes later. If you add in travel to the airport (I’ll assume I can get a friend to drop me off), checking in, waiting, and getting from JFK or La Guardia to Manhattan it probably takes about five hours - the same as driving. The ticket would cost $170 (though if I’d bought it earlier it might have been less). The flight would emit about 280 lbs CO2e, including radiative forcing effects. Offsetting this would add 1% to the ticket price.

I’d really rather not fly, so I could try taking a bus from Burlington. The way the bus schedules line up, I’d need to get a friend to drive me to Burlington Saturday morning - an hour in the opposite direction from New York. Or I could take the bus up Friday evening and stay with friends. If I left Saturday morning it would take me a bit more than nine hours all told, and I’d get to New York at 3:45 pm. The bus costs $74.50 - a little less than half the cost of flying, but about twice the travel time. It would emit about 130 lbs CO2e - worse than driving alone in a fuel-efficient car! Offsetting the emissions would increase the cost by 1%.

If I tried to take a bus from Rutland, which is closer than Burlington and on the way to New York, I’d have to either miss dinner or leave Friday and miss my doctor’s appointment. The only bus leaves at 11:15 am and gets in at 7:50 pm.

The last option is taking a train. Unfortunately, Amtrak is even more awkward than the bus. If I took a train from Burlington, I’d again have to miss dinner or the doctor. The only train leaves at 9:00 am and gets to New York nine and a half hours later at 6:25 pm - slower than the bus! From Rutland the train is only six hours, but again I’d miss dinner or the doctor. Luckily there’s a train from Port Henry that leaves Friday at 2:12 pm and gets to New York at 8:45 pm. It takes a bit more than six hours, and the ticket costs $69. The train probably emits 180 lbs CO2e - even worse than the bus! Offsetting this would add about 2% to the cost.

In conclusion, there isn’t a great public transit option. Part of the problem is that we simply haven’t invested in transit infrastructure. The Amtrak from Burlington averages 38 miles per hour - and the trains from Rutland and Port Henry average about 40 mph. High-speed rails, switches, and signals could probably double these speeds. And Amtrak service is highly dependent upon where rails run - the buses from Burlington and Rutland actually go slower than the trains, but they take a more direct route.

Another factor is our low population density. About 100 people live in each square mile of the conterminous U.S. The U.K. has 650 people per square mile, and France has almost 290. Building a good public transit system is more difficult in sparsely-populated areas. On the other hand, there is no spot in the lower 48 states that is further than 30 miles from a road.

In the end, I think I’ll go with the train from Port Henry. It’ll take longer than a bus, but will be much more comfortable. I can get some work done, read, and have more time with friends in New York. I’m disappointed that the train may emit more than a bus, but those figures are based on national averages and are highly dependent on the number of passengers. Hopefully the Montreal-New York rail line is a popular one.

-Ian