“How many of you are attending the Solar Energy Focus Conference for the first time?” Jigar Shah asked from the lectern. More than half the attendees at SEFC – roughly sixty people – raised their hands It gave the CEO of Carbon War Room, a think tank that proposes market based solutions to climate change, a reason to be optimistic: evidence of growth in the solar energy industry was right in front of his eyes.

The conference this year, hosted by the Maryland-DC-Virginia Solar Energy Industry Association in Gaithersburg, Maryland, was determined to sustain this growth; “how can solar move more to the mainstream?” was the question discussed by speakers, which included Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), state and local government officials, captains of the budding solar energy industry and academics. In addition to the self promotion and back-patting to which these sorts of gatherings are prone, presenters exhorted the government – particularly at the federal level – to do more to harness the power of the sun, lest we all feel its wrath.

Cirque du soleil

It seems like there is little appetite in Washington to move away from a carbon-based economy; Democrats want you to trade in your polluting cars for cars that pollute slightly less, and Republicans think more oil should be drilled from babies or something (I wasn't really paying attention). Despite this perceived inaction, the Department of Energy is making an effort to encourage growth of renewable energies through a loan guarantee program, Congressman Van Hollen told the crowd.

The DOE program gives government backing to creditors who lend money to businesses using “new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects.” Furthermore, cap and trade legislation, which puts a monetary price on pollution, is supported by the White House, and, theoretically, should encourage investment in cleaner sources of energy. 

For Jigar Shah, these measures don't go far enough; cap and trade is not where the priorities of the solar industry lie. Policies that encourage direct growth, like the 30% tax credit on home installations for clean energy fixtures bought until 2016 are what is needed. It may be a complex business, Shah said, affectionately describing those involved in it as “categorically insane,” but the promise is there. “Think back to the days when no one thought solar was viable,” Shah implored the crowd to reminisce. In recent years, the cost of manufacturing and installing solar panels has dropped dramatically. By offering a long term tax break, the government can direct private capital to stimulate the industry to the point where it doesn't need a subsidy.

William Rever, manager of strategic marketing for BP Solar, agreed that the best way for the government to promote solar energy would be by nudging consumers towards its use through a subsidy that isn't subject to a boom-bust in the political cycle. He told OhMyGov that America can learn from the success of the German feed-in tariff system, an annually declining subsidy on renewable energy rates that has aided the growth of the renewable energy industry there, “but there is no one-size-fits-all policy.”

The State(s) of Clean Energy

State governments, some of whom have introduced feed-in tariffs, are ahead of the curve in conjuring the political will to discourage the use of fossil fuels. Despite Congressional feet dragging on the issue, 34 states have passed emission reduction legislation and similar bills are on the table in five others. By the time Congress passes a law limiting emissions, the only way to see New Orleans may be by submarine. Even if the American delegation agrees to cut back on carbon emissions in Copenhagen at the Climate Change conference, there is no guarantee that it will be approved by Congress, whose authority is being increasingly bypassed by state governments.   

Dr. John Byrne, a member of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a keynote speaker at SEFC, doesn't believe that the federal government isn't moving on the issue; rather, it is just moving at the speed of a non-melting glacier. The economic stimulus package, he said, “needs to be credited for pointing the country in the right direction.” It committed the US to the largest two-year sustainable energy project, which is partially being used to help state governments meet their emission reduction targets.

One of those schemes — announced at the SEFC by Maryland energy administrator Malcom Woolf — will see the state of Maryland equip government buildings with renewable energy fixtures.

Project Sunburst, as the policy is known, “is still in development” according to Maryland Energy Administration clean energy program manager Mike Hartley, who spoke to OhMyGov after the conference from his office in Annapolis. “We're actively working with state agencies and county governments so that they can essentially get the benefits of clean energy.” He said that the project should begin in earnest in the early months of 2010.    

The reduction in Maryland's energy bill and the amount of jobs created will be revealed once it is known how many government buildings can install solar panels on their rooftops, Hartley said, which makes subsidized renewable energy extremely attractive. In addition to employment opportunities, solar panels can save consumers money on their utilities — provided, for now, that subsidies lower the fixed cost of installing them. 

“Energy and jobs are so closely related, you can't speak about one without speaking about the other,” Alexander M. Sanchez, Maryland Secretary of Labor, Licensing and Regulation told the SEFC. However, any meaningful increase in clean energy installations may be fraught with delays. Sanchez warned of a need to train skilled green workers in the State of Maryland.

If governments fail to heed the call of the solar energy pioneers to move from a carbon based economy now, there could be serious negative long term economic consequences, even if the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong about climate change being caused by mankind. Solar energy advocates may have vested interests in seeing their industry succeed, but then again, so too do fossil-fuel concerns. “Ten years down the line we'll be paying for new natural gas plants pushed by lobbyists,” Shah said, “when solar is cheaper than natural gas.” As a nation, he told the audience, we will only have two words to say then: “Oh, crap.” 

Dr. John Byrne: Emissions kill

As if job creation and shoring up long-term affordable energy supplies close to home weren't reasons enough to substitute fossil fuels, rising sea-levels and temperatures are. According to Dr. John Byrne, who took a few minutes to speak to OhMyGov at SEFC, the problem is definitely caused by man, and much worse than previously thought.

Or is it? What about those who deny that the problem is caused by greenhouse gas emissions? Dr. Byrne said the skeptics simply haven't submitted their studies for peer review, and shouldn't be taken seriously until they do. “I would trust folks who put data on the table,” he advised.

The severity of the problem, Dr. Byrne said, should convince Americans to consider legislation designed to limit emissions on many fronts. Policies that no longer treat emissions as harmless — cap and trade, and the recent classification as greenhouse gas emissions as detrimental to the public's health — are a start. Spurring innovation that uses “21st century energy” is a step in the right direction too, but conservation is always important, and “energy obesity” must be tackled. 

Byrne called a globalized agricultural system a major factor in climate change; reaching far off markets requires transportation, packaging and refrigeration. “By the time that apple arrives, the carbon that moves it to the marketplace is more than half the total that takes to produce it.” Sustainable agriculture practices, such as relying on less fertilizer and consuming local produce, should be encouraged. “It’s practical. It’s something we can do,” Byrne argued. “If we ate fresh food, it would taste better, be better for the environment and the economy.”

It may contravene the spirit of free trade agreements, and seem inefficient, but Dr. Byrne said there's no reason it shouldn't be done. “Europe has moved forward on policies that utilize other values — health and environmental criterion — to make decisions.” Stimulating local agricultural production could benefit the economy, if such policies were pursued multilaterally to avert a trade war. 

Transportation policy could also benefit from a multidimensional approach, in Dr. Byrne's opinion. Electric cars alone won't reduce emissions significantly if electric grids are powered by coal. While electric cars fueled by nuclear power would, the thought of another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island makes people fairly nervous. Dr. Byrne had good things to say about policies that promote electric vehicles and biomass fuels like switchgrass, which requires little energy to cultivate, but ultimately, Americans should seriously rethink the car culture.

“As we move to a carbon constrained world, the U.S. is at a big disadvantage. We just haven't invested in public transport,” Dr. Byrne said. There are other countries that have done more with less to modernize railroad networks. “You can get from the equivalent of Boston to D.C. in an hour and a half in South Korea,” he mentioned, adding that a one-way trip that costs $150 in the States would only be $40 in Korea.

Would Americans be willing to subsidize a state-of-the-art high speed train system? “We heavily subsidize automobiles anyway.” Bailouts and tax breaks aside, “it’s not private companies that pay for roads and bridges.”

Dr. Byrne, who will speak on the final day of the 2-week extravaganza in Copenhagen, expressed hope that the conference will result in “a modest accomplishment,” but urged comprehensive action as soon as possible. Climate change isn't the only reason people should question the use of fossil fuels. “There's an asthma epidemic in this country,” for example, which, Dr. Byrne said, can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions.  

“Do we want to keep doing things the 20th century way and lose, or do something more sensible?”