With the world abuzz about clean tech being the next revolution, the question posed by my energy and the environment class is apt -  is today’s clean tech boom really more sustainable than the one that followed the oil crisis in the 1970′s? I would argue it is for changes in the technological landscape, policy differences, society viewpoint as well as just the amount of money that is funneled into the space.

Today, thanks to advances in the way solar energy is captured, it is feasible for residential households to install solar panels. While the upfront costs still make it unfeasible for the average Joe, those that can afford the upfront costs shield themselves from the volatile nature of energy costs. Additionally, wind energy has grown tremendously.

Today’s clean tech ‘revolution’ (although i would argue it’s not a revolution, as its been in the works for decades) is driven by far more than just oil. The threat of global warming has made the world more aware of the costs of using dirty energy. Additionally, China, the world’s most populated country has keenly invested in harnessing renewable energy to meet its country’s growing energy needs. China is now one of the world leaders in wind power.  As developing countries require more energy, its imperative to make this move in a cleaner way.

Global warming has also brought clean tech to a more global scale where real policy changes seek to encourage the industry. Just take the Copenhagen accord. While unsuccessful, its mere existence shows a global concurrence on the need for clean tech.

Additionally, today tons of money, from both the public and private sector is being thrown into the space. The 1970′s saw primarily a boost from the public side. However, today large multinational companies like GE and BP have invested in clean technology.  That again makes it more sustainable. While the recession has taken a hit on the amount of investment in clean tech, a report by the CleanTech group shows that in the first quarter of 2010, investment in the sector is back up. If the space can survive the worst recession in years, clean tech isn’t making a disappearing act anytime soon.

We were discussing this issue in our journalism class today, and one of the students hit it on the mark – can anything really stop offshore drilling?  Clearly, the government’s weak stance goes to show that offshore drilling is here to stay. Currently the US only produces 4% of its oil needs domestically. This is a huge national security issue, especially considering most of our oil comes from the unstable middle east.  Offshore drilling is meant to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.While it will never make us self sustainable, it reduces some of the security risks. Additionally, the Gulf is a huge opportunity for large oil companies, and one spill is unlikely to deter them from pursuing the vast untapped reserves that lie beneath the vast oceans.

Also, the recent coal mining accident that claimed the lives of about 30 miners, barely put a damper on the coal industry. Like that incident, this one too will pass in time and it will be back to business as usual. The stakes for oil companies are too high for them to just roll over.

One of the biggest negative externalities to energy is the harm it often causes to the environment. Whether it’s the burning of fossil fuels that leads to global warming, or in the most recent case of the oil leak on the Gulf of Mexico, the environment is the loser. And the culprit is usually companies with large energy needs. In this case, the culprit is BP, one of the world’s largest oil companies.

While BP is attempting to handle the Clean-up, the government has stated that the Defense Department would become involved if the private sector failed to handle the situation. This oil leak would wreak havoc on ocean life as well as contaminate the waters.

Not only has this oil rig leak had an effect on the environment, but it adds complications to an already controversial energy and climate change bill that has been stuck in Senate. Obama’s recent approval of offshore drilling was a compromise that was meant to appease those Republicans who were opposed to the climate bill.

Now, there are those that say that they might not support the bill if it includes excessive drilling without safeguards. President Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place in his attempt to appease both sides and just push through a climate change bill. Those that were initially supportive of the climate bill feel that offshore drilling is harmful to the environment and does not belong in a bill that is meant to safeguard the environment. In a way, it makes sense – one action is meant to curb global warming and help the environment, while the other includes drilling which is harmful to the environment. This has especially come to a head given the effects of this oil spill.

Although he is faced with opposition Obama has stood his ground in his belief that oil drilling should be part of the plan. It will be interesting to see how the whole issue plays out.

Government officials held an emergency meeting to deal with the issue and yet the solution only exacerbated the problem. The government’s solution - force shops to close early in order to conserve power. Yet nighttime is where these shops generate most of their revenue. Additionally, in a culture where weddings run through the night, the government ordered wedding halls to close by 10pm. While the  country struggles to support its growing population, such measures act as an albatross.

Government inefficiencies have forced people to join in the corruption and steal power. General citizens have been forced to take a hit on their middle class lifestyle and are considering migrating, unable to handle the frustration. With many small businesses supported by power, these cuts stave off growth and have mired its citizens in poverty. And the hardest hit are the poorest citizens who cannot afford to bribe to have meters tampered with.

Citizens put political leaders in place to help their citizens rather than to use politics to personally benefit. The issue has citizens so angered that the opposition party has played on this current government’s weakness. Yet even if the opposition party were to win, chances are change will not follow.

While citizens don’t believe these measures will last, it just goes to prove how inefficient the government is in creating lasting measures to help ease the energy crisis in the country.

Pakistan is no different from a lot of other developing nations. In his book Power to the People, Vijay Vaitheeswaran discusses as similar problem in India’s Silicon Valley, where the inefficient State Electric Board has led to severe power cuts in Bangalore. Unless developing country governments end the corruption and start implementing real measures, the energy crisis issue has little hope of being resolved.

Cellulosic ethanol, unlike corn-based ethanol, uses the waste of plants. A new enzyme development by Novozymes, a company that has been a leader in this area, is exploring the use  of corn cobs to make ethanol for autos. Novozymes is already the nation’s leader in enzyme production for other purposes.  Cellulosic ethanol is better than traditional ethanol for both economic as well as environmental reasons. As most attractive technology, cellulosic ethanol is cheaper because it is more abundant as any plant waste can be used to product it. Additionally, this type of production leads to less toxic emissions than traditional ethanol. A study by the Argonne National Laboratory showed that it reduced emissions by 85% over gasoline.

However, the company says that the marketable product will not be available commercially until at least 2013. Given the history of this area, chances are this won’t be ready by then. Back in 2007 in his State of the Union address President Bush had touted the importance of finding alternatives to reduce our energy dependence. He had discussed the benefits of cellulosic ethanol and during his presidency pumped money in order to make it competitive with gasoline by 2012. Clearly, this goal is no where near being reached, thus the announcement by Novozymes should be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, it’s still great to see technological advances being made in the clean tech arena, and perhaps someday we will see things being competitive with gasoline.

This is a win-win situation for both China, who once a net oil exporter has in the last decade become a huge oil importer. With this move, China has secured for itself an important source of oil. Right now Venezuela sends China about 450,000 barrels of oil a day. This agreement will allow for another 400,000 barrels a day by 2016, a 10% increase in imports for China. China has over the last decade attempted to gain footholds in various oil supplying countries. They made huge investments in Sudan and the Middle East and now in South America.

For Venezuela its a way of diversifying its supply. Currently the US is its largest import partner, and with this move, they protect themselves from any disruption in supply on mainly one trade partner.It is also an answer to the prayers for a country that has been slammed by the recession, slowdown in oil revenues and foreign investment.

While China makes investments in oil rich countries, it has simultaneously made heavy investments in trying to reduce its dependence on oil through various renewable energy ventures, the largest being in wind power. Looks like China is covering all their bases.

In fact, by the time this theory was picked up by popular press, the evidence supporting the theory was starting to wane. In other words temperatures were beginning to rise.  This was when the effects of carbon di-oxide on the environment were first starting to take hold in mainstream media.  It is believed that the ‘cooling’ effect, like the global warming concerns we are now facing was caused by humans, particularly by the use of aerosols. Of all the papers that discusses climate change during the time, only a miniscule amount actually floated the idea of global cooling. It’s amazing to see the effect that the press can have in taking a theory with minimal scientific evidence, and blowing it out of proportion.

However, giving them a clean bill does not erase the irreparable damage the community has suffered. As a result of this ‘Climategate‘ fiasco, the scientific community faced criticism and skepticism from the masses. People have begun to question not just he evidence that climate change is a real issue, but whether the scientists that research it are legitimate. When people began to lose faith in scientists no matter how strong the scientific evidence, it is difficult to convince them. A Gallup pool is perfect evidence that people have less faith now in the importance of climate change than they did a year ago. In 2009 32% of people said that they believe climate change will affect them, down from the 40% who believed that in 2008. Additionally 48% of Americans feel that the threat of global warming is blown out of proportion, up from 41% the year before.

These statistics are only going to be exacerbated by the negative media coverage of the scientific community. The scientific community needs to get a stronger communications voice to ensure their reputation remains untarnished by political tactics like Climategate.

Given the amount of energy used in defenses, this is a vital move for the green movement and will help reduce our immense dependence on oil. The benefit of using thermal energy is that it is not dependent on certain times like solar energy, its ubiquitous, and it has minimal impact on ocean life, so its environmentally friendly. Given the immense amount of energy required by the navy, it would be difficult to rely just on solar or wind power, which is uncontrollable and less predictable.

The biggest fear is of a disruption in the Middle East, which given our dependence on their oil, could be disastrous. The United States only produces about 4% of the oil it consumes domestically. The rest is imported.This makes the US extremely vulnerable to any threat of a supply cut. According to the US Energy Administration in January 2010 67% of the US’s oil was imported from five countries. Additionally, prices in the oil market tend to swing and can have a detrimental effect on the Navy’s budget. Given the instability in the Middle East, this move towards a greener navy will strengthen the US in the long run.

Africa, South America and India have experienced the effects of climate change much more strongly than the United States. This new finding however, changes that. The study also found that the temperature changes were stronger in urban areas, which follows with the fact that urban areas tend to be larger emittors.

While warmer waters does not sound detrimental in reality it can havoc acquatic life. Increased water temperature decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, affecting fish and other animals. It can also lead to increases in metabolic rates in these animals, which causes them to eat more leading to food shortages in the ecosystem. These creature may also choose to leave the inhabitable environement disturbing the food chain and established life.

This study brings to head the issue of reducing emisssons, which has reached a stalemate of sorts due to politics. Only time will tell whether Obama will be able to push through his climate bill and start making real strides in the climate change issue.