UC San Diego History and Science Studies Professor, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, the co-author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming was featured on the OpEd page of the Los Angeles Times this week.  “The verdict is in on climate change” is a logical and articulate presentation why, in this case, the seemingly reasonable act of maintaining an open mind is, in fact, unreasonable.  Click here to get the full impact in her words.

In Merchants of Doubt, Dr. Oreskes describes how denial-for-hire “experts” have been involved in a continuum of anti-science campaigns stretching back over 50 years to a time when cigarettes were supposedly healthy.  Their tactics have centered on nurturing doubt to forestall action.  The jury is still out; two sides to every story; don’t rush to judgment are their common themes.

The remarkable scientific advances of the past two centuries are based upon a process of research, followed by scientific writing, followed by peer review.  Modern scientific truths are not based on opinion polls or the forcefully stated positions of hired guns from unrelated fields.  The fact that not every scientist within a given field is in agreement does not negate the validity of the peer reviewed conclusions held by the vast majority.  Imagine that you had a child with a life-threating medical condition.  Your doctors agree on the recommended course of action.  In doing so they reveal that their conclusions are held by 90% of the physicians in their specialty.  Would you not take action because their conclusions were not universally held?  Would tell your child, “The jury is still out?”  Would you wait?

Click here for my 2010 review of Merchants of Doubt.  Buy a copy for yourself and for all of your smart friends who read.  

With a focus on the San Diego region’s job growth, smarter technology development, solar energy storage integration and increased electric vehicle infrastructure and deployment, Smart City San Diego is delivering results. The collaborative is made up of City of San Diego, GE, UC San Diego, CleanTECH San Diego and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E).  It formed to leverage each entity’s strengths to create and implement initiatives to improve the region’s energy independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and assert San Diego as a clean energy leader.

“Over the past year, Smart City San Diego has been forward-thinking about creating opportunities for a more sustainable region,” said San Diego Mayor Sanders. “Moving into 2012, our collaborative will continue to build on those results and develop and launch even more initiatives to drive economic growth for our region.”

These results include:

Car2Go: The City of San Diego and SDG&E worked with Daimler’s Car2Go to make San Diego’s launch of its plug-in electric vehicle car sharing pilot a big success. The City continues to work with SDG&E to increase the number of public-access charging stations throughout the Car2Go targeted region. The team is working collectively to educate the community about the benefits of the pilot program and expects to increase public interest in electric vehicles and encourage the growth of the plug-in electric vehicle industry in San Diego. Data gained from Car2Go will provide information on where charging stations are most needed. Smart City San Diego also continues to work to streamline the permitting process for deploying charging stations.

Smart Appliances: SDG&E and GE are working together to test the communication links between GE’s smart appliances and SDG&E’s smart meters to ensure consumers are empowered with the best technologies to manage energy use and costs. GE’s Appliances business is supplying SDG&E with a smart dishwasher, washer and dryer along with a GE Nucleus energy manager and Programmable Control Thermostat to expedite the testing process. SDG&E’s team is currently testing the communication between these assets prior to consumer deployment.

Economic Development and Job Growth: CleanTECH San Diego – working with the City of San Diego, SDG&E, UC San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and its private sector member companies – is quantifying and categorizing regional clean tech companies that touch smart grid technology development. Categories include solar energy, energy storage, energy efficiency, clean transportation and other technology companies. CleanTECH San Diego has also created a baseline analysis of the direct and indirect economic impacts of the named clusters. This baseline analysis can help quantify year-over-year job growth and other economic impacts of the regional smart grid sector. This will be particularly helpful in measuring the economic impact of the over 180 solar companies and over 20 storage companies that call San Diego home.

Solar Integrated Energy Storage: UC San Diego and SDG&E have submitted a grant application to test, demonstrate and evaluate a variety of solar integrated energy storage projects over a 12 to 24 month period. If funded, this initiative will test multiple applications at multiple sites and provide analysis for the benefit of utilities, grid planners, regulators, solar inverter manufacturers, system integrators, business modelers, energy storage manufacturers and other early adopters. CleanTECH San Diego supports this initiative as part of efforts to advance the region as an Innovation Hub (IHub).  In August 2010, the California Governor’s Office of Economic Development designated the greater San Diego region as an IHub for solar energy storage.  The purpose of the IHub is to build on the region’s existing innovation infrastructure and strong culture of collaboration to accelerate the convergence of solar energy and energy storage.

Policy Leadership: In July 2010, Smart City San Diego hosted California Public Utilities Commissioner Mark Ferron for a day long briefing on San Diego’s smart grid initiatives.  The Commissioner met with industry representatives from the solar, energy efficiency, smart grid and technology sectors and toured UC San Diego’s world renowned microgrid.  The collaborative held a roundtable with the Commissioner to brief him on the vision and work of Smart City San Diego.

Solar Decathlon 2013 Finalist: The City of San Diego and UC San Diego worked with the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon Committee to make San Diego one of two finalists for the location of the 2013 Solar Decathlon. The event promotes the outreach, education, and economic benefits of energy security, renewable energy and energy efficiency.  If early projections bear out, attendance at the event has the potential to be larger than the San Diego Convention Center’s highest attended conference and create a positive economic impact for the region.

Economic Development and Job Growth: GE worked with CleanTech San Diego and SDG&E to host a GE Sourcing Supplier Diversity event for the first time in San Diego.  Over 50 diverse local suppliers participated in one-on-one sessions with GE buyers to learn how best to work with GE and be considered for future projects.

“GE is proud to bring our grid modernization technology and expertise to Smart City San Diego,” said Mark Hura, global smart grid commercial Leader for GE’s Digital Energy business.  ”An efficient, reliable and sustainable electric infrastructure is essential to powering economic growth and supporting business, industry and the dynamic lifestyles of a skilled workforce.  We applaud all the successes over the past year and look forward to many more to come.”

Formed in January 2011, Smart City San Diego was charged with bringing together leading organizations from government, business, education and non-profit to maximize synergies to drive sustainability programs forward, identify new opportunities, embrace additional collaborators, and move the San Diego region beyond today’s boundaries of sustainability.  This model will be able to be duplicated in other regions.

The collaborative leverages its strengths and resources as a partnership to develop and implement local initiatives that will empower consumers, improve environmental quality, drive economic growth, and reduce the San Diego region’s reliance on oil.  The collaborative is working toward a more consumer-focused, environmentally conscious energy future by addressing San Diegan’s 21st century energy needs.

Click here for the Smart City San Diego website

Carl Nettleton, Lee Stein, Elizabeth Dreicer McPhail, Bryce Rhodes

The E2 San Diego Chapter held an EcoSalon on Thursday, October 20, titled, “Energy Security and the Impact on the Economy.”  The event was held at Chapter Co-Director Lee Stein’s home and featured three panelists: Leendert “Len” Hering Sr. RADM, USN (ret.); Stephen Mayfield, UC San Diego Professor of Biology and Director of the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology; and Marney Cox, Chief Economist for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). E2 San Diego Chapter Co-Director Carl Nettleton moderated the session. 

San Diego is a hub for both the military and alternative fuels development and the panelists discussed the national and local imperatives driving the military’s emphasis on reducing or eliminating fossil fuel use.  According to Chapter Co-Director Elizabeth Dreicer McPhail, the event met the goal of bringing together a small but quality group of business and community leaders to provide visibility for E2 while researching locally important issues and appealing to potential new members.

In August E2 published a 23 page report, Advanced Biofuel Market Report 2011.  Click here for your copy.

Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) is a national community of business leaders who promote sound environmental policy that builds economic prosperity.  E2 has seven chapters: Northern California, New England, New York, Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Los Angeles, and San Diego.

On Friday Dr. Peter Diamandis, founder and CEO of the X Prize Foundation, was the keynote speaker for the annual venture summit of the San Diego Venture Group.  This was my second opportunity to hear the dynamic Diamandis present.  His work is focused outside the box, but not so far as to be non-productive; in summary, “audacious yet achievable”.

The X PRIZE Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization solving the world’s Grand Challenges by creating and managing large-scale, high-profile, incentivized prize competitions that stimulate investment in R&D worth far more than the prize itself.  The first two X Prize competitions awarded $20 million to the winners.  In May the X PRIZE Foundation announced that they would collaborate with Qualcomm Incorporated to design the Tricorder X PRIZE, a $10 million prize to develop a mobile solution that can diagnose patients better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians.

In addition to active X Prize competitions there are others which are in development waiting funding or under consideration including several in the category of Energy & Environment.  The X Prize website lists a dozen “audacious yet achievable” topics for consideration.  (click to link)

• Aviation Battery (Lite/Heavy)
• Carbon Utilization
• Electric Aviation
• Energy Awareness
• ePod/Home Energy Storage
• Featherweight Solar
• Featherweight Wind
• Race to Zero CO2
• Rapid Drilling
• Residential Waste to Power
• Robotic Mole
• Solar Pavement

In particular I am intrigued with Carbon Utilization and Solar Pavement.

Carbon Utilization

We recycle aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and yard waste – why not carbon? As of now, no company has successfully commercialized a carbon utilization technology. Current government funding is narrowly focused on ultra-expensive geologic sequestration, which treats carbon as a liability, with virtually no attention to utilization technologies, which treat carbon as an asset. A Carbon Utilization competition crosses political boundaries and environmental ideologies by finding profit in reducing emissions through technological solutions. The goal would be to develop radical new technologies that solve the global carbon challenge by recycling CO2 into brilliant new products. The winning team must create a system that cost-effectively transforms carbon emissions from coal-based power plants into beneficial products. This must be accomplished while maintaining energy producers’ ability to provide reliable cost-effective “base load” power to their customers, including those below the poverty level.

Solar Pavement

While nearly 3% of US land area is covered by pavement, it provides no benefit other than surface structure. A significant impact could be achieved if it were made to also produce power. The goal of the Solar Pavement competition will be to turn blacktop surfaces into photovoltaic power generation sources. The winner will be the first team to convert a one acre parking lot surface into a generator that can produce a peak power output of 50kW of solar energy.

Tom Steyer has a vision for a national dialogue about energy production and consumption.  At the 2011 gathering of the Cleantech Investor Summit in Palm Springs, California, Steyer shared his perspective on the defeat of Proposition 23, along with how that outcome can inform the national conversation on clean energy issues.

Steyer is an unlikely spokesperson in the clean energy movement.  As the founder and co-managing partner of Farallon Capital Management, he has built a career around institutional investing for schools, foundations and high-net-wealth individuals.

“I have been a professional investor for the last 30 years, not having to do with clean energy,” said Steyer.  “When Prop 23 was proposed, I assumed that I would do absolutely nothing.  When everyone else took the exact same tact as I took, which was to do absolutely nothing, eventually I got so upset and angry that I decided that I would spend my time and put up some money to try and change the dynamic about how this proposition was going to work.”

The Spark of Proposition 23

As Texas oil companies mobilized a campaign to pass Prop 23, Steyer observed that the general lack of an organized coalition against Prop 23 was leading to a tragedy of the commons.  “I don’t think I was doing anything smart.  I don’t think I was doing anything calculated.  I think I just lost my temper and said I’m damned if this is going to happen in our face,” said Steyer.

It was at that moment he decided to take a stand and encourage others to do the same.  For Steyer, there was a deep seeded sense of conviction and confidence in his message.

“Do not be disinclined to engage the other side or be intimidated by their brains or their money, because my experience from this and from previous campaigns is we have the brains and we can find the money,” said Steyer.

Coalition Building

With a keen and masterful sense of the importance of stakeholder engagement, Steyer served as co-chair of the “No on 23” campaign together with a staunch political polar opposite, former Secretary of State George Shultz.  The coalition itself was a demonstration of co-mingled ideologies and strange bedfellows.

“To get a coalition, you need visible leaders so that you can go to the people who are part of their constituency and make your pitch and not be thrown out of the room without a hearing,” said Steyer.

The new clean energy coalition, according to Steyer, needs to be comprised of four essential groups: Business People, Republicans, People of Faith and National Security Professionals (such as the military and Department of Defense).

“I think our goal has to be to build the coalition,” said Steyer.  “In order to win this national argument, we have to be able to reach out to the people who aren’t our natural allies and convince them not just that we’re right, but that it’s really important that they be on our side.  If we had these four groups, we’d have the passion and we could go anywhere in the United States and make this argument.”

The National Stage

Rather than blaming Washington, DC, Steyer takes the position that the capital will respond to the engagement of the American people at a grassroots level.  “Things happen in DC after the country decides what it wants,” said Steyer.  “DC is not going to lead.  DC is going to be the validation of the conversation that goes on across the country.”

On the national stage, Steyer sees the lack of federal energy policy as a reflection of the public’s lack of engagement in the discussion.  “One of the reasons I felt so strongly that we’d never get a major energy bill in 2010 is [that] I can’t believe it’s going to happen without a huge conversation at the national level,” said Steyer.

“If you think about the health care bill, if you think about civil rights, if you think about when we’ve changed massively, there has been a huge conversation with everybody participating, with people airing all their views with a close examination of what’s going on… and there hasn’t been that kind of conversation [around energy].”

Of course, the difference with health care and civil rights is the direct connection that Americans feel with those issues.  For most people, on the other hand, energy is an abstraction.  We understand that energy turns the lights on and keeps the beer cold, but how it’s made and where it comes from is beyond the familiar patterns of our daily conversations.  The key to engagement seems to be in how we make energy issues more approachable.

Winning Hearts, Minds and Solar Panels

“So when we think about this conversation, salience is really important,” said Steyer.  “People have to understand, ‘Oh my gosh, this is totally relevant for me.  This is an important thing.  This is going to change my vote.  This is going to change my life.’”

“Until that happens, I do not believe that we will be able to get [changes made].  This is not a minor change.  Energy runs through every part of our day and every part of our economy.  To change this is going to take a massive change of attitude.”

If ever there was a person capable of inspiring that massive change of attitude, it might just be Tom Steyer.  The roadmap he presented at the Cleantech Investor Summit was credible, well-constructed and achievable.  Is he up for the challenge?  Despite his attempts at self-deprecation, Steyer clearly has a knack for community building and a deep intuitive talent for understanding the dynamics of personal engagement.  In California, he was been battle tested with Proposition 23 and came out victorious.  What’s next for Tom Steyer?  Hopefully more of the same.

A web archive of Mr. Steyer’s presentation is available here.

Lee Barken, CPA, LEED-AP is the Energy and Cleantech practice leader at Haskell & White, LLP and serves on the board of directors of CleanTECH San Diego and as Vice-Chair of the WREGIS Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Lee writes and speaks on the topics of renewable energy project finance, green building, IT audit compliance and wireless LAN technology.  You can reach him at 858-350-4215 or lbarken@hwcpa.com.

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about the unanimous decision of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to allow Tradable Renewable Energy Credits (T-RECs) in California.  If you’re not familiar with a T-REC, it is, quite simply, an environmental commodity representing the environmental attributes associated with one MegaWatt hour of renewable energy generation.

According to the CPUC, under the new rules, T-RECs “can be purchased by a utility and traded separately from the underlying energy produced by a renewable generating facility.  These energy credits can then be applied, by the utility, toward their renewable energy compliance goals.”

Within days of last year’s March 11 decision, a flurry of controversy erupted.  A joint petition to modify the decision was filed by San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric, the three Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) most affected by the T-REC ruling.  Additional modifications were requested in a petition by the Independent Energy Producers Association. 

Increasing pressure was felt throughout Sacramento from the Governor’s desk to the State Legislature.  A stay of the T-RECs decision was issued on May 6, 2010.  For more than eight months, the short lived T-REC program remained in a frozen, fossil-like condition.

Back From Extinction

“I think most of you are painfully aware that this commission has gone round and round on the issue of the role of Tradable Renewable Energy Credits in the RPS program,” said CPUC Commissioner Michael Peevey in his opening remarks at the January 13, 2011 CPUC meeting to consider a new decision for the T-REC program.

The CPUC’s January 13, 2011 decision reverses the stay from May 6, 2010 and reaffirms the original March 11, 2010 ruling with some minor modifications. 

“In largely rejecting the petitions to modify that were filed by the utilities and the IEPs, this decision effectively restores the decision that this commission voted [on] in March of last year.  It was, I think, a sensible and reasonable decision.  I supported it at the time, and I support today’s decision,” said Commissioner Nancy Ryan.

 In short, the rules going forward allow the use of Tradable RECs, including out-of-state generation, to meet compliance requirements under California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), with the following notable exceptions:

 - T-RECs can only be used to meet 25 percent of an entity’s compliance obligation.

- Transactions are capped at $50 per T-REC.

- The 25 percent and $50 per T-REC limitations are temporary and remain in effect only until December 31, 2013.

“The basic approach of the March decision and today’s decision is to wade gradually into the emerging market for Tradable Renewable Energy Credits and I think that’s a prudent thing to do,” said Commissioner Ryan.

Since the limitations expire at the end of 2013, it provides an opportunity to revisit and make adjustments, as necessary.

“This training-wheels approach to market development will give the Commission an opportunity to more closely monitor dynamics to the end of 2013, at which time this commission will evaluate the need for these particular regulatory mechanisms,” said Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon, adding this hint about the possible sun-setting on the restrictions, “I look forward to a more robust and less restrained T-RECs market in the near term to enable cost effective RPS compliance for our rate payers.”

This sentiment was echoed by Commissioner Ryan, who said, “I think it’s appropriate that we have some role for RECs at the present and I hope to see a more open market in the future.”

Do more T-RECs mean lower costs for rate payers?  Will the broader adoption of out-of-state T-RECs translate into a better deal for California consumers?

Renewable Generation Civil War

Among the most contentious and controversial issues surfacing in the T-REC battle was the question of allocating in-state versus out-of-state production.  Under a T-REC program, a compliance obligation in California could be met by a T-REC generated in any of 14 states participating in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).

“For many, the issue of Tradable RECs has become a proxy dispute over the role of in-state versus out-of-state facilities in meeting that state’s renewable objectives,” said Commissioner Peevey.

The core of this issue seems to be that T-RECs, which allow out-of-state generation, will stimulate green jobs outside of the state subsidizing that generation.  On the other hand, if California utilities are forced to purchase “Made in California” T-RECs exclusively, it will increase the cost of compliance, which is a price ultimately borne by the rate payer.

In short, multiple objectives are in conflict.  This begs the question:  Is the goal to stimulate jobs in California, or is the goal to stimulate renewable energy generation?  Is California trying to have its cake and eat it too?

“T-RECs is a very controversial issue, and I think the reason that it’s so controversial is that it casts in very high relief some of the internal conflicts about the RPS program and the concept of a renewable portfolio standard in California,” said Commissioner Ryan.

Among the goals mentioned by Commissioner Ryan are the reduction of GHG emissions, improvements in local air quality, local economic development, saving consumers money and promoting the development of new technologies.

“That’s just a few of the items on the list,” said Ryan.  “We can’t have all of those things at once.”

A Balanced Approach

In striking its compromise, the Commission appears to be supporting the general principle of T-RECs as a mechanism to lower costs, but with safeguards (albeit temporary) to experiment with and demonstrate the viability of the program.

“This will give us ample experience with the emerging T-REC market, as well as provide sufficient time to develop appropriate methods to assess the value of different contracts to ratepayers,” said Commissioner Peevey.

“It is, has always been and remains my opinion that having a role for Tradable RECs in the RPS program is a consumer protection measure,” said Commissioner Ryan.  “It provides necessary competition to bundled projects to contain their costs and bring the best value to consumers.”

New Life for T-RECs

It’s taken several years and one false start, but it now appears that the T-REC market in California is ready for its first trial run.

In closing the T-REC discussion, Commissioner Peevey added some comments in his characteristic light-hearted and humorous style.  “I think we finally resolved something.  Maybe it took a November election to do so, but it’s resolved for the moment.  I know not everybody is happy with this, but that’s how it is and we’re going forward.”

With that, Commissioner Peevey moved the item for a vote and it was adopted.  Welcome to California, mighty T-RECs.

Lee Barken, CPA, LEED-AP is the Energy and Cleantech Practice Leader at Haskell & White, LLP and serves on the board of directors of CleanTECH San Diego and as Vice-Chair of the WREGIS Stakeholder Advisory Committee.  Lee writes and speaks on the topics of renewable energy finance, green building, IT audit compliance, wireless LAN technology.  You can reach him at 858-350-4215 or lbarken@hwcpa.com.

Proposition 23, which would Suspend AB 32, the Global Warming Act of 2006, is on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California.  Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  The act, passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is California’s landmark clean air legislation which requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020.  As part of this process, utilities in the state are required to obtain a third of their power from renewable sources.  If Proposition 23 is passed, AB 32 would be suspended until the state’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.  To put that number in perspective, California’s unemployment rate, which currently hovers around 12%, has been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters just three times since 1980.

Arguments for Prop 23

The arguments for Prop 23 are summarized here in a column quoted from the Orange County Register:

“By approving Prop. 23, voters can stall implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and perhaps save more than 1 million jobs until state unemployment falls to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters.  Unemployment has been above 12 percent for more than a year.

We prefer permanent repeal of the 2006 law. For now, we urge at least a delay of its disastrous economic effects and infringements on private-sector freedoms.”

Arguments against Prop 23

Quoted here from The Herald (Monterey County) 

“California achieved greatness through innovation and the success of clean industries such as aerospace, high tech, film and education.  At the moment, it is poised to lead the nation again through the development of various clean-tech ventures, but that would be wiped out overnight through a ballot measure intended primarily to help the shareholders of Tesoro and Valero and Occidental Petroleum.”

My Take on Prop 23

Consider some facts on California’s clean energy sector

• The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs has increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008.  This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state’s average job growth rate.
• California has over 12,000 clean energy businesses and 500,000 people are employed in clean energy occupations.
• With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California’s clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America

With such data, how can anyone make a plausible argument that AB 32 will lead to more job losses?   The manufacturing jobs that proponents of Prop 23 are trying to win back are gone – forever.  The globalization of commerce has made low wage countries the predominant destination for these jobs.  Simple economics dictate that these jobs will continue to go to low wage countries.  To stay ahead of the curve and grow our country’s GDP, we must continue to innovate and create products and services that can’t be won over by lower labor costs.  Research and development in the clean energy sector will contribute towards that great cause and create more jobs, not reduce them.  California is the leading state when it comes to cleantech and if Prop 23 were to pass, it would be a huge blow to the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency all across the country.  If you’re a California resident, do yourself and your neighbors a favor and vote NO on Prop 23.

Greener Dawn provides training and lead generation services to energy auditors, home performance contractors, and solar installers nationwide.  You may contact Courtland Weisleder at cweisleder@greenerdawn.com

The intent of Proposition 23 is to thwart the strongest clean energy policy ever passed in the United States.  To protect their future markets, big oil interests spread the fear of job loss.  In fact, the clean technology sector in California has been one of the few areas of job creation in our country.  With or without California the world will move forward with clean technology.  California’s leadership in this transformation means jobs now and more jobs later.

Let’s focus on what we know for sure.  Our planet is occupied by 6.87 billion people.  California has 37 million.  Although California represents less than 0.5% of the world’s population, its portfolio of clean technology goods and services has a strong global demand.  That’s over six billion customers who won’t be able to survive the transition without innovative solutions, many of which originate in our state.

San Diego is proof of the current economic benefits of clean technology in jobs and capital formation.  The news archive on CleanTECH San Diego’s website includes 728 news reports so far this year which are focused on clean technology in the San Diego region.  The vast majority of these stories are about local companies who are opening new markets and acquiring customers.  The news is about inventing and innovating, about creating the new and combining the old into new configurations.  These are the activities of hiring and training, of developing a skilled local workforce which anticipates what the world needs rather than reacts to what has already happened.

San Diego County’s population of 3 million is a tiny 0.04% of the world, but we are already ranked the #7 top cleantech cluster worldwide.  Proposition 23’s aim is to delay, delay, delay.  If you are only in the business of dirty energy solutions, what possible benefit to you are the next great cleantech innovations from San Diego? 

California’s solar capacity represents about two-thirds of the total U.S. solar capacity.  San Diego has the most installed rooftop solar in the country.  Therefore, we are the number one solar city in the number one solar state.  The 758 cleantech companies listed in the CleanTECH San Diego database include 190 solar companies.  Thousands of cleantech jobs in San Diego County are supported by a backlog of business which will dramatically increase energy production from solar.  Proposition 23 wants to block the very legislation which mandates the growth of solar and other alternative sources of energy. 

There are other good reasons for not allowing the Texas petroleum boys to satisfy their self-interest including air quality and energy security.  If you truly want to make your decision on jobs and economic growth please spend 2 minutes glancing over the cleantech news about San Diego in September.  There are 55 stories, almost all of which are about the positive outcomes we all want for our home town. 

Julia R. Brown, a senior life science executive and longtime San Diego resident wrote an OpEd piece for the North Country Times last week.  Click here for FORUM: Prop. 23 all about oil company profits.

Also available on-line and via Android, Skeptical Science lists 119 one-line responses to combat climate “skeptics” and “disinformers”.  Each response links to the supporting scientific references.  The counter to “…no consensus about climate change”, is “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.”   To add credibility to your rebuttal, a click on the answer links to a basic 500 word explanation.  If you need to pull out the big guns you can click on the intermediate level of response for a more detailed explanation with charts, peer-reviewed research etc. 

 Skeptical Science is the labor-of-love of Australian John Cook.  He notes that “Scientific skepticism is healthy.”  In fact skepticism is at the core of the modern scientific method.  The ideas of scientists are tested and retested.  Evidence is challenged and scrutinized in the crucible of honest scientific examination.  Critical to the process is peer-reviewed research, the purpose of which is to advance science in the direction of consensus understanding. 

All of scientists who hold a common understanding about the impact of human activity upon climate embrace the integrity of the scientific process described above.  Outside of this scientific process are those self-proclaimed experts who present non-reviewed opinions as facts.

John Cook deserves our appreciation for addressing a complicated subject in a clear and efficient manner.  His website draws an active global participation every day.

OK