allgreenblogs.com

The University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Center for Entrepreneurship announced today that 50 students from around the world have been selected to attend the second annual Green Technology Entrepreneurship Academy in Incline Village, Nevada.

The Academy will be held July 7-11, 2008, and is being taught by experts from some of the nation's top venture capital firms, law firms, and research institutions.

The idea? To help students move their research out of the lab and into the market.

This summer's academy, according to people close to the Center, will host students from 23 universities around the world, including doctoral students, post docs, and research faculty working in a wide range of science and engineering fields.

"The diverse student body at this year's Academy will bring a fresh batch of ideas to the table, and will leave armed with the tools they need to propel their ideas forward," said Associate Professor Andy Hargadon, director, UC Davis Center for Entrepreneurship.

It's kind of a "boot camp" for entrepreneurship, with sessions focusing on intellectual property, elevator pitches, development strategies, market validation, business plan presentations, and the logistics of building a team, among other topics.

Students will also get to network with and vet their concepts with other students and even pitch it to faculty members.

The Academy’s faculty includes VCs from American River Ventures, CalCEF Clean Energy Angel Fund, DFJ Frontier, MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures, Nth Power, Physic Ventures, and Sierra Angels, as well as researchers from National Instruments, San Diego Gas & Electric, and the UC Davis Energy Efficiency Center.

Efficiency and sustainability guru Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, will be the keynote speaker at a networking dinner on July 9.

My blogging pal over at Market Folly (check out his in-depth series on Hedge Fund 13F's here) has been dipping into alternative energy stock analysis now and again, and we've swapped interesting companies to watch and some sector research.

His recent post caught my eye because he's reviewing both the recent Economist special report, which I have read, and a piece in Forbes, which I haven't. And because I'm on vacation in Alaska, I'm going to reblog his post here in hopes that my readers will find it useful:

Check out Market Folly's How to Play Energy in the Intermediate Term. And subscribe to his RSS feed for future reading.

Although we don't always agree, I share a healthy skepticism with Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School.

And, as his opinion piece in the Washington Post last week revealed, we are both concerned that the United States is "missing the opportunity of a lifetime," as Sam Wainwright said to George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life."

Lomborg's assertion? That "the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions."

In other words, we need to get beyond global warming concerns and focus on accelerating the new green economy.

We are focusing on the wrong things.

As an example, "solar panels are one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many 'green' approaches do little more than make rich people feel they are helping the planet. We can't avoid climate change by forcing a few more inefficient solar panels onto rooftops."

The answer? We need to "dramatically increase research and development so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than later," Lomborg asserts. "Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050: We would have solved the problem of global warming, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn't be the preserve of rich Westerners."

"This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project," according to Lomborg, "which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers."

This group of experts did a thorough cost-benefit analysis of various response to these challenges. In the end, they "didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels."

I've long argued here in The Green Skeptic that we've missed the opportunity thus far -- a 30-year opportunity to invest in the kind of R&D that gave us the Internet and other technological and economic advances. Lomborg agrees.

"The United States has an opportunity to lead the world on research and development," Lomborg argues. "Which would give it the moral authority to demand that everyone else do the same. The world's sole superpower could finally provide the leadership on climate change that has been lacking in the White House.

"Even if every nation spent 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development of low-carbon energy, this would be only about one-tenth as costly as the Kyoto Protocol and would save dramatically more than any of Kyoto's likely successors."

I concur. It's time to unleash the creativity and innovation that has long made this country a leader on the world economic stage, and set us on course for a low-carbon, economically prosperous future. A new green economy.

Last weekend while Twittering about my trip back to Alaska -- a place I left 10 years ago this August, one of my stalwart followers, globalgirl, revealed that she is the great niece of one of my heroes, Colonel Norman Vaughan.

For those of you not familiar with the man or the legend, Norman Dane Vaughan dropped out of Harvard in 1928 to pursue Admiral Byrd's Expedition in Antarctica. He was the chief dog driver on the two-year Byrd expedition and later Byrd named an Antarctic mountain in his honor.

He also mushed as part of a search and rescue unit in World War II, in the Olympics, and in the Iditarod, as well as in three Presidential Inauguration ceremonies.

On 16, 1994, Vaughan climbed his eponymous 10,302-foot peak, three days shy of his 89th birthday. National Geographic documented this trip in a film, Height of Courage

My encounters with Colonel Vaughan via my work with the Nature Conservancy in Alaska were inspiring and humorous. The humorous included bringing him to a TNC party in New York as part of an Alaska exhibit where he posed with a sled dog team from Long Island.

He was a man of tremendous courage, opinion, and drive. And he gave me three things that I still hold as inspiration: a zipper pull he had designed for clumsily shod gloved hands, which now dons my sleeping bag; words of wisdom he imparted to my young son when they first met; and a playing card he had developed bearing his face, bio, and motto: "Dream Big and Dare to Fail."

Vaughan died on December 23, 2005, 4 days after his 100th birthday. (Hear an interview with Colonel Vaughan from NPR, recorded just prior to his centennial birthday.

How wonderful to be reminded of Colonel Vaughan, and to be back in the Alaska we both once called home.

(Thanks to globalgirl for reaching out about her Great Uncle!)

Join the Zork Revolution! Become a member of our green social site. It takes only a few minutes. It's FREE! Plus ENTER TO WIN a FREE T-Shirt.

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

It’s not just at the gas pump- the price of everything is skyrocketing.  Americans are hurting badly, while expecting our government to propose a plan of action NOW.  Seems all they can do is argue and not accomplish much. On the Democratic side of politics, they have been recreating a measure in the House to punish [...]

An Ipsos MORI poll released last Sunday found that a majority of the British public does not believe human activity has caused global warming.

According to the poll, which first showed up in The Observer, found that 60 percent of the 1,039 British adults surveyed agreed that "many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change," with a further 40 percent saying they "sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say."

Still, 75 percent of the respondents said they were "concerned about climate change."

According to the Observer, "More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes."

But does it matter what folks in the UK think? Last we checked, it was the US that still needs to come around.

See original article in The Observer/Guardian online

The energy landscape is changing, says The Economist, but where is it heading?

This week's issue (21 June) has a special report looking at the options facing the world, including alternative sources and

The market for energy is huge. Estimated at US$6 trillion a year, it accounts for about a tenth of the world's economic output -- and by 2050, power consumption is likely to have doubled from today's levels. High fuel prices and worries over energy security and global warming mean that a technology boom based on alternative energy may soon be upon us.

Wind and solar both are approach cost parity with traditional sources, at least in terms of new development. Biofuels caught on and we were all heading to Abilene with them, until some folks pointed out the issues with corn- and other food-based sources. And even electric cars and nuclear power seem to be rising from the dead.

It's clear the future of energy must change if economic development and prosperity are to continue.

The Economist report looks at the full range of alternative energy options that may fuel the new green economy and asks the critical question, can they break our addiction to oil and coal?

When I was in college (I won’t say when so as to avoid my own shock when I proof this post), I bought a discounted book at the campus bookstore that was all about how to reduce the environmental impact of college campuses. It was a great book, full of examples of colleges that were already doing many of the things that the book suggested. I don’t remember the title of the book, but I think I still have it. I’ll update this post if/when I happen to stumble by it again.

One of the recommendations I remember most was about student housing. As a Resident Advisor, I was very interested in this aspect of a campus’s eco-footprint, and the suggestions was incredibly simple: change out incandescent light bulbs for new-fangled compact fluorescents in dorm-rooms and classrooms, and anywhere energy-sucking incandescents could be found.

Today, I think that’s a no-brainer, but I’ll bet there are still lots and lots of colleges and other schools that have not done even this simple step. Shame on them.

Something I hadn’t thought about, though - at least from a specifically environmental perspective - is the relative environmental impact of e-learning compared to conventional college courses.

I received an email from new blogger Ruth Sylvia in early May about a post she had just recently finished about this very subject - Online Learning is Green - and I marked it to come back to later, when I had more time. It was then promptly lost in the black hole of information that is my email (currently set at more then 700 unread emails in my inbox - most of which are trash, I’m sure).

I’ve been trying to reduce the info-sucking quotient of my inbox by digging through and cleaning up, and today I happened by Ruth’s email once again. I took the time to read the above article, and I liked the idea the online learning is more environmentally-friendly than traditional learning. My campus specifically was probably 75% commuter students, meaning that thise learners drove to campus every day, and then drove back home after classes were over. Traffic, parking, and pollution heavy. More then once I feared for my life when crossing the street or walking to the business school building, which was not on campus “proper,” but located in the surrounding city.

I’d never talk down traditional education; I think that College campuses are by far one of the more beautiful, well-cared, picturesque communities in any neighborhood that is lucky enough to have one located in or near it. But in lieu of commuting to a physical campus, if you are unwilling or unable to live on campus as a student, may I suggest looking into online courses? Save yourself some money on gas, and help save the Earth every day you don’t drive in!

Namaste,
A. Caleb Hartley

---

Did you commute to campus? Does your child or sibling? Did you live on campus? Were you an online learner? What did/does your campus do to reduce it’s impact? Answer all these questions and more in the comments!

Earthling, we are fond of your other creatures on this planet. We assure you that you are not the only important species on this planet.

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

A new study by Clean Edge and Co-op America shows that the US could achieve 10 percent solar by 2025:

While the U.S. currently gets less than one tenth of one percent of its electricity from solar power, our research shows that solar offers the opportunity to provide a significant portion of the nation’s electricity supply for both distributed and centralized generation by 2025—up to ten percent from a combination of solar PV and CSP. As storage and smart grid technologies evolve, we see the potential for solar to provide an even larger percentage of U.S electricity needs.

Their analysis -- based upon proprietary Clean Edge data, company research, and expert interviews -- provides the following key findings:

1. Solar resources are ubiquitous.
2. Solar can provide utilities with a peak-power hedge.
3. Environment and carbon are becoming central drivers.
4. Solar power will soon reach price parity with conventional sources.
5. Utility participation is critical to solar success.
6. Smart grid deployment is imperative.
7. Distributed solar PV offers utilities unique advantages.
8. The solar industry needs to cooperate with utilities.
9. Standards must be implemented.
10. It’s not just PV, but also CSP (Concentrated Solar Power).
11. Utilities need to be able to integrate solar expenditures into their
rate base—and to be able to take a full life-cycle cost approach.
12. Utilities have a unique relationship with customers.

Download the report here: Clean Edge

I've crashed a few parties in my day. But tonight I found my way into an invitation-only special event, thanks to my old TNC-pal David Whitehead.

The occasion? Saying farewell to Stephanie Meeks, the acting president and CEO of The Nature Conservancy, who will step down at the end of the month. I was glad I went.

I've known Stephanie for a long time; we came into the Conservancy around the same time, and we each contributed in our own ways to the organization's tremendous success over the past decade and change.

Over the past eighteen years, Stephanie rose in the ranks from a humble start in the Tennessee chapter to acting CEO. She took over the top spot last October, when Steve McCormick left to run the Moore Foundation.

But in reality, Stephanie was capably running much of the organization by the time she stepped into the acting president and CEO role. Since the late 90s, Stephanie oversaw the fundraising, marketing, and operations functions and later became chief operating officer.

Her able leadership, decisiveness, and laser focus fueled the dizzying growth and, ultimately, navigated the ship through unchartered waters: enabling her team to mobilize billions of dollars in support of conservation outcomes.

A colleague told me that when Stephanie stepped up to the plate last Fall, the organization let out a huge exhale. Such was the confidence the staff and board had in her abilities and leadership.

She was an inspiring and tireless leader; in part because she understood the real value in shared leadership and trusting her team. This was a lesson she -- and all of us -- learned from the late John Sawhill, and from Stephanie's former boss, the late Mike Coda.

The Conservancy ultimately decided to go in a different direction, bringing in Mark Tercek to lead its next chapter. This was not a reflection on Stephanie's promise as a leader; most of us who worked under her believed in her capabilities.

As with any leader, we didn't always agree with particular decisions she made. (In the last few years a wall seemed to be building between the staff and executive team, and staff and board, for instance. That was disconcerting, but it never hampered TNC's growth.)

We all understood, however, that Stephanie always lived the Conservancy's values, and her decisions were driven by an insatiable desire to advance the Conservancy's mission.

Some smart group -- non-profit or for-profit -- will snap her up. They will not be disappointed.

Stephanie Meeks will go on to lead another organization of committed individuals to great growth and new heights. She will also learn a lesson a number of us have learned: there is life after TNC.

Thank you, Stephanie, and good luck in your future endeavors. I won't say goodbye, hoping our paths will cross again down the road.

(Blogging by BlackBerry; updated with links and photo courtesy of TNC on 6/20/08)

Tomorrow is officially Summer. But, here in the Puget Sound area, we got jipped out of Spring.  We can count on one hand, well maybe not quite two hands the few days that have come close to 70 degrees. The truth is, it has been flat out cold.  In this month of June, Fairbanks ,Alaska has [...]

What if every human on this planet rode a Vespa and there were no gas guzzling SUVs or trucks?

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

A few weeks ago I mentioned Brighter Planet’s 350 Challenge and the offsets they were offering to bloggers who shared the program by including a badge on their sites. Today EasyGreensy and one of my personal blogs received their certificates. 

The original plan was to end the promotion after they reached 350 participants, but they are now keeping it open so bloggers can continue to join. If you haven’t done so yet click over to http://350.brighterplanet.com/ and get your badge.

I think one of the most important tips anyone can share when it comes to trying to b environmentally friendly and sustainable is to avoid getting (as Dunja Woods @ Simple Ways To Help calls it) “eco-overwhelm”. It’s very easy to receive so much information that you begin wondering where to start, and what to do next. Before you know it there is so much you want to do that you begin seeing negative affects on your own life because you want to do everything in an eco way.

Dunja wrote a great set of steps to Overcome Feelings of Eco-Overwhelm, but I think the best summary of it all is that you need to focus on individual tasks and don’t be afraid to say no. Unfortunately there are some things that you just can’t do. Maybe its something you’ll be able to do in the future, but don’t feel bad because you can’t do everything green right away. Focus on one aspect of green living at a time and before you know it everything will fall into place.

Related articles

• Consumers Feeling Overwhelmed By “Green Noise” [via Zemanta]

There is something else you could do to help the planet but it will not be visible except with your energy bill. Human, plug the holes in your dwelling so that hot or cool energy does not escape it.

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Technology entrepreneur and strategy consultant Sramana Mitra asked some simple questions in a Forbes.com article last Friday:

"What would it take? What would it take for the U.S. to move to a 50% renewable energy economy by 2020? What would it take for India to become a 100% solar economy by 2050?

"The answer lies in aggressive innovation and entrepreneurship in all parts of the solar ecosystem coupled with resolute policy decisions. And please note that policy alone, without innovation and entrepreneurship, will not solve the problem.

"Take the United States. Building a 100- to 300-megawatt solar power plant costs $750 million to $1.5 billion. To really move the needle, hundreds and thousands of such plants need to pop up all over the country and funnel clean energy into power grids.

"The best outcome would be if technology obviates the need for solar subsidies. 'Eventually, it is a technology race,' says David Chen of Equilibrium Capital, a new sustainability fund and a long-term technology industry veteran. We've seen this for over 30 years in cycle after cycle, whether it is in integrated circuits or disk drives, LCDs or flat panels. Moore's Law, it is called. We will see it again in solar. But in the meantime, policy will need to intervene, and make it worthwhile for investors and entrepreneurs to play in the market.

"In India and China, a distributed power strategy would be ideal. But batteries, which store solar energy captured during the day and release it at night, are still too expensive to be used on a mass scale.

"Here's another question: What would it take to stimulate small businesses to build up solar farms and sell energy into utility grids? I suspect, again, both policy and entrepreneurship would need to go hand in hand."

Simple questions require simple answers.

But, thus far, the simple answers ellude us. What's required is, as Ms. Mitra suggests, for Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, and Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to "sit down with entrepreneurs, business leaders and investors, and understand through candid exchanges what sort of policy is needed to unlock the enormous entrepreneurial energy that sits boiling amid the ocean of human potential."

These leaders and others would do well to heed Ms. Mitra's advice.

Earthling, if you want to save the planet, convince your boss to let you teleconference and telecommute once per week.

[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

Some of you may have noticed that environmentastic! can sometimes be difficult to read, due to the fact that light brown, small type on a dark brown background is, well, difficult to read. Additionally, there are little quirks to the design of the blog, like the very cramped quarters between the end of one post and the headline of the next.

With all that in mind, below you will find screenshots of the new wordpress templates that I have decided are an option for environmentastic! to change to. At the bottom of this post, you will find a survey asking which of the templates you, my readers, prefer.

Please take a look at each of the options below and then vote for your favorite. You will also notice options for environmentastic! to keep it’s current template, or to take none of the templates. I am debating having a template designed specifically for environmentastic!, but I’m a poor (read cheap) schlub who isn’t making enough money to justify paying a designer just yet… but that will be changing very soon.

Now that that is out of the way - here are the contenders:

OPTION 1 (above - Click to enlarge)

OPTION 2 (above - Click to enlarge)

OPTION 3 (above - Click to enlarge)

OPTION 4 - (above - click to enlarge)

OPTION 5 (above - Click to enlarge)

OPTION 6 (above - Click to enlarge)

Please vote - this is another way for the important people (all of you) to have a little say about what you read and how you read it! Plus - I’m horrible at making decisions…

Namaste,
A. Caleb Hartley

---

If you vote for “none of the above,” please let me know of any good wordpress designers you know by leaving a comment. If you like more than one - pick the one you like best, but leave a comment telling me which other ones you approve of as well. Thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for your input!