In Davos, talk of linking clean tech and economy

The World Economic Forum calculates that $515 billion in yearly investment is required between now and 2030 to transition the world to cleaner sources of energy production.

At its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum released a report (click for PDF) on Thursday urging policy makers to make clean-technology incentives and investments part of government stimulus plans to revive flagging economies.

Economists who authored the report said alternative-energy technologies have the potential to address two pressing global problems--energy security and climate change--while generating good financial returns.

"It is essential that this stimulus also build our capacity to solve the longer-term climate crisis. Well-meaning but short-sighted economic stimulus programs could lock us into a predominately fossil fuel-based world economy for decades," according to the report.

A number of initiatives related to clean-energy, such as retrofitting government buildings to be energy-efficient, can create jobs and lay the foundation for longer-term economic growth, according to the World Economic Forum.

The report identified eight "large-scale clean-energy sectors" that government policies should seek to promote. They include: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar-photovoltaic energy, solar-thermal electricity generation, municipal solar energy, waste-to-energy generation, sugar-based ethanol, cellulosic and next-generation biofuels, and geothermal power.

In the United States, the Obama administration has made clear that it trying to tie economic development to clean technology. There are a number of provisions related to clean energy in a stimulus plan, which just passed the House of Representatives and could be voted on by the Senate next week.

The World Economic Forum's call for massive investments in clean energy echoes the International Energy Agency's 2008 annual report. Because of growing energy demand and climate change, the IEA said the world's energy consumption is "patently unsustainable. Its report concluded that trillions of dollars are needed to "decarbonize" the energy infrastructure and curb greenhouse gas emissions growth.

[open-mind]

I'm all for alternative energy, but I wish the climate change alarmists (mostly democratic politicians, not scientists) would stop implying (without evidence) that man made CO2 is a root cause. I've read the following:

FACT #1: Scientists estimate that all CO2 only contributes from 9% to 26% of the total greenhouse effect.
FACT #2: Scientists estimate that less than 5% of all CO2 is created by man.

So even if mankind stops making CO2 completely (completely stops burning wood/coal/gas/etc and stops breathing) the greenhouse effect (at most) can only be reduced by 1.3%. One tenth of that is probably a more realistic estimate of what might be possible.

So RIGHT NOW (according to Al Gore) in order to achieve a 0.1% reduction in greenhouse effect, we suddenly need radical life style changes, a "climate czar", and billions spent on climate change research?

Sorry folks, but to this engineer and tax payer, it seems like a scare-tactic scam to me.

[atomD21]

Something does need to happen to begin the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but until it can be made affordable to the masses, it won't gain the widespread acceptance needed to be viable. I can't justify spending 3-4x the amount of money right now just to be "green."

[matthewbulat]

Consider widespread energy efficiency first and then alternative energy. This is cheaper to implement. I have created online calculators exist to find out which projects are economically viable. There are also calculators for electric cars, solar power and solar hot water.
Advantages:
Save power
Save money
Create economic activity
Save water used by power stations
Reduce carbon footprint
Improve balance of payments for country
Regards
Matthew Bulat
http://www.matthewb.id.au/