Obama: eliminate taxpayer dollars for big oil and invest in clean technology

In his State of the Union Address tonight, President Barrack Obama made a powerful case for investing in clean energy technology. The way he would pay for it is by eliminating taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil. Here's the text:

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

What do you think? Can it happen?

Will new eco-labels increase consumer desire for renewables?

Two new eco-labels came to my attention this week and have me thinking. Could they help drive consumer demand for renewables? (an issue I recently blogged about).

The first is WindMade, the new trustmark launched by Vestas. The concept is fairly straightforward: products that are produced using at least 25 percent wind energy and 25 percent from some other renewable energy source would qualify for the trustmark. The details were laid out in an excellent article for the February issue of Fast Company Magazine.

The second is BioPreferred, a new label from the United States Department of Agriculture that aims to increase the purchase and use of renewable biobased products. As with Windmade the 50 percent threshold comes into play; to qualify as BioPreferred, a product must be at least 51 percent biobased. The label launch was assisted by the green communications pioneers at J. Ottman Consulting as outlined in a blog post.

What do you think? Will companies desire these eco-labels enough to pay extra for renewable energy and bio-based products? Will consumers push companies to use more renewable energy and material in their products?

There is certainly no shortage of eco-labels and far more have failed than succeeded. A recent one from CBS has shown some of the pitfalls that can ensnare the efforts. In some way or another, nearly all of them want to emulate the success of ENERGY STAR.

I'm wondering why WindMade chose to focus only on wind and not broader renewable energy? It seems like that could have broadened the adoption and helped them reach their goal of 1,000 companies signed up by next year. And don't get me started on the blue swirl logo. But, the key difference between WindMade and ENERGY STAR is that the latter typically saves the consumer money while the former will typically accompany something that costs the consumer more. When I shell out an extra $35 for an ENERGY STAR dishwasher (which I recently did), I can do so knowing that I will make my money back in less than two years on the energy savings. WindMade applies to the way that the product was produced, not what it will do once it's in my hands.

Depending on the product, BioPreferred could offer more tangible benefits as consumers are more frequently looking for products with ingredients that are bio-based rather than petroleum-based. However, the new label is not without its critics, who say that 51 percent bio-based doesn't go far enough.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. This the subject of a column I'm writing for O'Dwyer's this weekend so comment soon!

A climate change movie...

...that doesn't even care if you believe in climate change.

I love the idea of this movie, but if it's truly about benefiting from going green regardless of climate change believe, Carbon Nation seems like a strange name choice. And the trailer showcases a lot of the same old people from the climate change movement:



Hopefully it is able to convince people to take actions that avert climate change even if they don't believe in it. We'll find out soon, as Carbon Nation opens in theaters January 14.