Archive

Posts Tagged ‘next’

Is the company behind GMO salmon the next Solyndra?

October 19th, 2011 admin No comments

by Tom Laskawy.

Is the company making genetically modified salmon about to become the next Solyndra? According to the U.K.’s Guardian, it’s very possible. In the wake of the USDA’s announcement of a $500,000 grant to AquaBounty, the developer of Atlantic salmon that have been modified to grow faster on less feed, advocates at the Center for Food Safety, a consumer group opposed to FDA approval, dug deeper into the company’s latest financial statement.

Grist noted late last month that the company had a net loss of $2.8 million. Now it’s also clear that the company faces a fairly serious cash crunch. After spending 16 years and $67 million developing the fish, AquaBounty may run out of money by the middle of next year.

It’s true that the FDA may be only weeks away from announcing its approval, but the salmon (which has been branded with the name AquAdvantage) has a long way to go until it gets out of the lab. After all, the system for growing the fish is complex, land-based, and intentionally avoids U.S. sites for operations (the fish eggs will supposedly be grown in Canada and the fish themselves in Panama — but the Guardian reports neither country has given approval).

As The Center for Food Safety’s Colin O’Neill told the Guardian, “They are still not in the home stretch even if there is FDA approval.”

The Guardian’s coverage also focused on government shenanigans, and asks: Did the USDA follow proper procedures in approving the loan? (The agency claims it did.) Still, there’s no question that the USDA is trying to throw AquAdvantage a lifeline — and it’s unlikely to have done so without a fairly strong belief that FDA approval isn’t far off. And of course, one could argue that AquaBounty has shown a repeated ability to raise money and now, so close to its goal, it’s likely to find investors willing to help them out.

Solyndra had to face down the issue of competing solar technology leap-frogging the product the company had put time and money into developing (as Grist has explained). AquBounty (thankfully) has no real competition, so it should surprise no one that the biotech-friendly USDA is going all in.

Another difference from the Solyndra fracas: I seriously doubt that Republicans will leap up and begin a loud and sustained media campaign to end government subsidies for the biotech industry as they did for solar. Indeed, the real issue seems to be that AquaBounty has raised its pant leg to display an Achilles Heel: the company’s dwindling bank account. On top of all this, GMO food labeling is becoming a household issue. More than one dedicated advocacy group has recently arisen to fight back, and general concern about GMO food hasn’t been so present in the mainstream media since the Great Genetically Modified French Fry Debacle of 2000. All this might give pause to new investors in such technology.

AquaBounty’s balance sheet is a tempting target for advocates looking to aim their rhetorical arrows. The more delays and roadblocks that get thrown up against government approvals — whether here, in Canada, or in Panama — the less likely it becomes that GMO salmon will ever see the light of day. And while that would be a shame for the workers at AquaBounty, the rest of us (not to mention the remaining stocks of wild salmon) would be far better off without it.

Related Links:

Fumigation nation: Battling pesticide use in California

MSM on Solyndra: It’s not a scandal

Is this the most anti-environment House of Representatives ever?






View full post on Grist.org – the latest from Grist

Solyndra is the next ‘Climategate’

September 14th, 2011 admin No comments

by David Roberts.

As you have no doubt heard by now, Solyndra, a solar power company that got more than half a billion dollars in loan guarantees from a Department of Energy Recovery Act program, has gone bankrupt.

The truth behind the episode isn’t entirely clear yet. Apparently the Obama administration really did push way too hard to speed up the application. Then again the Bush administration pushed too. I’ve heard from people that Solyndra’s tech was crazy and doomed from the beginning, that it was brilliant and could have triumphed with more support, and that Solyndra was undercut by heavily subsidized Chinese solar companies. Exactly what mix of factors was involved will probably take months to unwind and the truth is unlikely to satisfy any of the parties to the present debate.

What actually happened, how it could have been prevented, who’s responsible—these things are orthogonal to the battle taking place in political circles. That battle has nothing to do with the facts.

For a mix of financial and ideological reasons,  U.S. conservative movement activists, operators, and politicos hate clean energy. They don’t believe in climate change, they love fossil fuels and fossil-fuel campaign donations, and they think, or want the U.S. public to think, that clean energy is weak, unreliable, marginal, and dependent on government subsidies. They have been trying to make that case for a long while.

What Solyndra gives them is a symbol, something to use as a stand-in to discredit not just the DOE loan program, but all government support for clean energy and indeed clean energy itself.

Watching this unfold over the last week, I keep thinking back to “Climategate.” When it first broke back in late 2009, lefties and bloggers and Dem lawmakers just ignored it, because it was obviously dumb. This left the field entirely open to a massive attack from the right, coordinated among ideological media, staffers, lobbyists, and pols. When the left finally stirred itself to action, all that emerged were a bunch of long, boring investigations into the details and good-faith efforts to be fair about how both sides a point. By the time five separate investigations had cleared the scientists of all wrongdoing, the damage was done. Now we’re seeing the same script play out again.

Cons understand post-truth politics. They understand that truth is utterly inert in an era when mainstream institutions are viewed with hostility and skepticism, the media is fractured, and there are no shared norms or referees to enforce them.  The side that wins is the side that plays to its audience’s existing preconceptions with a simple message repeated over and over and over again in multiple venues.

That’s what is happening now around Solyndra. The right is going after this whole hog, trying to make the name synonymous with clean energy   boondoggle. And the left is flailing around, throwing out this fact and that fact with no coherent message. Lord am I tired of watching this script play out.

———

BONUS VIDEO: This is Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) at today’s hearing, once again demonstrating that he’s one of the very few Dems in Congress who understands how this game is played. Don’t quibble over facts. Change the conversation.

Related Links:

Fossil-fueled Republicans grandstand against Solyndra, solar energy

Conversations You WON’T Overhear

Bush admin pushed Solyndra loan guarantee for two years






View full post on Grist.org – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

What’s next for clean energy

August 2nd, 2011 admin No comments

by Michael Moynihan.

This past weekend, I attended the Aspen Institute‘s Clean Energy
Roundtable, an annual gathering of business, political, and policy
leaders working in clean energy. Inspired by the many insights and ideas
presented, here are my thoughts on the state of clean energy today and
what lies ahead.

First, the good news.  Prices of key clean energy technologies are
plummeting, bringing many technologies, such as distributed solar and
energy storage, closer and closer to mass deployment.  The cost of solar
panels today is about 20 percent below that of a year ago.  And it should
continue dropping for the forseeable future. In other words, the
performance/price ratio is improving exponentially, like computer chips,
if not quite as fast, and for different reasons—cost economies for the
most part, as opposed to breakthrough technologies.  The main driver of
the plummeting costs is volume and successful efforts by the Chinese
government to vertically integrate the Chinese solar industry, which
now supplies over half of the world’s solar panels.  (In advanced thin films, costs per watt
are also coming down.)  Even more dramatic price drops are occurring in
battery storage across a range of chemistries, with prices halving in the
the last year.  Plummeting prices that translate to rising performance
are good news for developers, electric carmakers, and the global
industry at large.

The story is more complicated, however, in the United States, where
we are in what might be described as the best and worst of times.  This
past year saw torrid growth in solar deployment in the U.S., with solar
capacity doubling; wind installations also grew, and wind is now a very
competitive source of power.  Solar—already competitive with
subsidies—will be competitive without them in several years.  That is
the good news.  The bad news is that solar generation still supplies
only 0.2 percent of U.S. electricity, and, what’s more, growth has been
driven by the 1603 provision in the tax law that allows tax credits to
be redeemed for cash.  This provision expires on Dec. 31 this year.
Since the financial crisis, tax credits deals to build everything from
affordable housing to energy have exceeded the relatively thin pool of
capital from investors seeking to shelter profits.  That means tax
credits absent the 1603 provision can be worthless.  With extension of
Section 1603 uncertain, the solar industry may face significant
challenges beginning this winter.

Similarly, on the wind side, the end of the 1603 credit would take a
toll, and the production tax credit for wind itself expires at the end
of next year. While companies are scrambling to start projects before
these deadlines pass, afterwards activity may fall of the proverbial
cliff.  In short, while global fundamentals for clean energy remain
strong, the sector remains quite sensitive to government subsidy.  In
the U.S., with subsidy likely to change, and especially with gas prices
likely to stay low as more shale gas comes onstream, we may see more
clean energy activity shift overseas.  (One potential fix to this
problem: moving clean energy off “subsidies” and giving them equal
access to the master limited partnership tax break that extractive
industries like oil and gas enjoy.)

Indeed, despite intense focus by Silicon Valley and the support of
the U.S. government, the U.S. is not catching up with Europe or China on
clean energy, and in many measures, we are falling further behind.  A few
years ago, Germany adopted an export promotion plan that included
factories as exports.  It exported gas turbine and solar panel factories
to China, which is how China has so rapidly come to dominate many areas
of clean manufacturing.  The Germans have done well selling machine
tools to the Chinese while creating demand (and green power) at home
through an aggressive feed-in tariff. The U.S., however—except for a few
bright spots like Applied Materials, which makes equipment to manufacture
panels; First Solar, a thin film manufacturer; a few innovators such as
Sun Edison and Tesla; and a few large companies such as GE and IBM—
has yet to find its way.

Why?  Unlike Germany, which has deep credentials in improving
manufacturing incrementally, we have excelled through innovating and
creating new industries. For example, France Telecom deployed the
minitel years before America went online, but U.S. companies ultimately
came to dominate online technology once we created the open internet
platform that allowed Yankee entrepreneurship to flourish.  Yet despite
developing scores of breakthrough energy technologies in our national
labs and robust funding of clean energy companies, as I have written
before, cleantech innovators have run up against the brick wall of a
regulatory system that funnels purchasing decisions to regulated
utilities
.  The latter are disincentivized by law to invest in new
technologies.  Meanwhile, in many states, the consumer remains locked
out of the action entirely behind the Iron Curtain of the electricity
meter. The sector is still attracting capital, but time is running out to
upgrade the regulatory structure to what I have described as
Electricity 2.0 to create large, gatekeeper-free platforms that reward
innovation and investment.

If there is one strong positive on the clean energy front, it is that
the consumer has been given a small seat at the table, notably through
the introduction this year of the first two electric cars, the Chevy
Volt and the Nissan Leaf, and in the form of the proliferation of direct
generation of electricity, primarily from solar.  The electric car is a
technology that can engage the consumer on the ultimate playing field of
new, more, and better.  However, if the the cars fail to thrill, cleantech will experience a potentially huge setback.  For that reason, making
electric cars and charging infrastructure work has to be a key priority
for the industry.

More broadly, the once-almighty American consumer, who has not only
driven domestic growth in recent decades by controlling a huge chunk of
GDP, but also funded the development of the Pacific rim, has been the
missing force in the clean energy sector.  Consumers are prohibited from
directly buying clean energy by law in many states, in contrast to
communications or the internet, where consumer demand drives rapid
product life cycles and profits at a speed in sync with venture
capital.

Indeed, the write-once, make-money-everywhere model of the internet
is providing stiff competition for capital to cleantech, where local
regulations and the gatekeeping role of utilities can sap the energies
of even the best funded, most visionary entrepreneurs.

Nonetheless, my final takeaway was that while challenges abound,
clean energy remains one of the largest, most important, and potentially
most transformative projects of the 21st century.  Our job is to
engage the consumer, sweep away barriers, and play to America’s strengths
in innovation, entrepreneurship, and out-of-the box thinking in the face
of obstacles.

Related Links:

Local clean energy a high priority for Canadian provinces

Warren Buffet’s crazy-like-a-fox plan to revive America’s auto industry

Dudefest no more? Women are infiltrating cleantech






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Categories: Working For Jobs Tags: , , ,

What’s next for the enviro-business coalition that defeated California’s Prop 23?

April 27th, 2011 admin No comments

by Todd Woody.

Much of the green movement has been mounting a rearguard fight in Washington to fend off attempts to gut the U.S. EPA in the wake of the Republican sweep of the 2010 elections.

California, as usual, is heading down a different road. The enviro-business coalition that defeated Prop 23, Texas oil companies’ attempt to derail the state’s global-warming law, is stepping up effort to push lawmakers to expand California’s climate-change efforts.

First, the No on 23 campaign led by billionaire hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer resurfaced last month as Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs.

On Tuesday, a second group, the Silicon
Valley-based Clean Coalition, emerged to press a similar agenda in an effort it calls the Clean California Campaign. “The Campaign promotes policies to meet Gov. Jerry Brown’s call to install 12,000 megawatts of new renewable energy projects in California communities by 2020,” the group said in a statement. “The Campaign’s initiatives will maximize clean energy job creation, attract billions of private investment dollars, boost state and local government budgets, and reduce electric bills.”

In the Golden State, that’s like saying you love the beach, dolphins, and sunshine. So what is the Clean Coalition—whose members range from the Los Angeles Business Council to the California chapters of the U.S. Green Building Council to Westinghouse Solar—actually going to do?

One, push for the expansion of programs requiring utilities to pay premiums—aka feed-in tariffs—for distributed generation
of renewable energy, such as rooftop solar and small photovoltaic farms.

The Clean Coalition also plans to lobby to simplify and speed up the process of connecting renewable energy projects to the grid, currently a years-long, laborious process not designed for bringing on hundreds if not thousands of new power sources. Stephanie Wang, the Clean Coalition’s program director, told me the group would focus on legislation and regulatory reform to achieve its aims.

In a sign of the Clean Coalition’s pull, the organization trotted out
California’s green elite to endorse its campaign, from a former state
energy commissioner to Terry Tamminen, who served as secretary of the
California Environmental Protection Agency under Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger.

While the Clean Coalition and Steyer’s group are pursuing separate if complementary agendas, the result is likely to be a full-court press to get California Democrats, who control all top statewide offices from Gov. Jerry Brown on down as well as the legislature, to ramp up renewable
energy production.

Related Links:

Strawberry grower shows how to make a profit without poisons

Court strikes down federal overreach on transmission lines

Google to buy 100.8 megawatts of Oklahoma wind energy






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

Your next bike could be made out of nylon and 3D-printed at home

March 9th, 2011 admin No comments

by Jess Zimmerman.

Okay,
so this isn’t something you can do with your home printer … yet. But this gorgeous hunk of
bike might represent the new wave of bike manufacturing. It’s made using
3D printing technology, which adds nylon powder in thin layers to
achieve the desired shape. In this case, that shape can be perfectly
tailored to the rider—and the nylon rivals aluminum in lightness and
steel frames in strength. Plus, it looks so futurey!

Read more:

3D-Printed Bike,” MAKE
Bicycle material is ‘grown’ from high strength nylon powder,” Eureka

Related Links:

How to not buy anything ever again

Where do the greenest commuters live? Not Portland

What if you updated your electronics like you update your wardrobe?






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

How to bury nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years

February 10th, 2011 admin No comments

by Miller-McCune.

This piece was written by Lewis Beale.

The first documentary that Netflix might slot into their science fiction category, director Michael Madsen’s Into Eternity, is an eerily fascinating look at the planet’s most unique construction project.

Known
as Onkalo—“hiding place” in Finnish—this massive work in the north
of Finland, which began construction in the last century and won’t be
completed until the next one, is a series of concrete-reinforced
underground tunnels meant to store the country’s nuclear waste. And it’s
designed to last until the waste is harmless—a full 100,000 years.

Say
it again—100,000 years. The figure is mind-boggling, and that’s one
of the points the film—currently playing in New York and soon to be
released around the country—sets out to make. How do you plan
something that’s supposed to last that long? How do you build it? And
when it’s finished, should you warn future generations what lies 500
feet under the Finnish forest or hope that the project will be forgotten
and no one will unintentionally stumble upon it?

Onkalo is, in
fact, the first project of its kind, so the engineers and scientists
interviewed in the film are definitely pioneers of a sort. “Everyone is
waiting to see if Finland can pull this off,” said Madsen (not
to be confused with the Reservoir Dogs star) during a phone
interview. “No one knows the right way to do this, and no one knows if
it will work. That means even the nuclear safety authorities don’t know
what the standards are.”

Fact is, something needs to be done with the estimated 250,000 tons of
nuclear waste worldwide. Right now, interim storage is available above
ground in steel containers submerged in water, but no one seems to know
how long this solution will be viable. And as one of the film’s talking
heads puts it, “The world above ground is unstable.”

Which is why
the Finns decided to build Onkalo in solid bedrock that’s been around
for about 1 billion years and is not susceptible to earthquakes.
Construction, which began in 2003, will eventually consist of 2.5 miles of tunnels organized in what is described as a “Russian doll”
configuration—if the barrier to one tunnel fails, the barrier to
another can mitigate any possible consequences. And once construction is
finished sometime in the 22nd century, a concrete seal will be cast at
the tunnel mouth, and shut for all eternity. Then the land above it will
be backfilled and eventually returned to its natural state.

All well and good. The plan seems, on its surface, well thought out. But beyond construction discussions, Into Eternity gets into some seriously futuristic issues. For one thing, Madsen films
a lot of the tunnel footage in loving tracking shots, including some
scenes of construction equipment set to the strains of Jean Sibelius’
“Valse Triste.” It’s like watching a real-life version of that scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey, where shots of a spinning space station are set to Strauss’ “Blue Danube” waltz:

But it is Madsen’s questions about future generations, and what they
should be told about the project, that really set the film spinning off
into the province of writers like William Gibson and Joe Haldeman. Most
of the scientists don’t seem worried about human intrusion and even
question if future generations will understand the purpose of Onkalo or
even have advanced enough technology to penetrate it. Who knows, after
all, if 100,000 years into the future, humankind will have regressed
technologically or left the planet for a new home in the stars?

Which
is why some experts believe the project should be left untended and
forgotten, or, as one scientist puts it, “to remember forever to
forget.” But others think the site should be marked with warnings,
although when they start thinking about exactly how to communicate with
future generations, you can almost see the brains of these intellects
start to sizzle with frustration. What kind of spoken language will
Future Human be using? Will pictograms do the trick? And if so, who knows
if today’s universal symbol for nuclear danger will have any meaning
thousands of years into the future?

It all comes under what one
commentator labels “decisions under uncertainty”—what you know you
don’t know, and what you don’t know you don’t know.

“I think what
is most significant about the project is that these experts, the people
building it, are more inclined to talk about the technical aspects
rather than the actual problem, which is the time span and should we
warn the future or not,” said Madsen. “It is possible to understand the
argument that it should be forgotten, which the Finnish engineers tend
to advocate. But how do you create forgetting? And if you go for that
one, you have to be overly confident in what you’re building—‘We’re
giving a 100,000-year warranty on this building’—and that is hubris.”

Hubris? Or faith in the future? Into Eternity tends to leave the answer up to the viewer, but as far as Madsen is concerned, the answer to those questions is self-evident.

“We have to watch the future,” he said. “To assume it is foolproof—that’s nonsense.”

This
article was
syndicated with permission from Miller-McCune,
an online and print magazine that focuses on practical options for solving
serious problems, particularly if the options are backed by quality research
and evidence.

Related Links:

A new documentary about the real wealth of nations—happiness

What was the most sustainable cinema at Sundance 2011?

Ask Umbra on movies to see from the Wild & Scenic Film Festival






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

Ask Umbra Book Club: Next week the discussion begins about Bill Bryson’s ‘At Home’

February 2nd, 2011 admin No comments

by Umbra Fisk.

Dearest readers,

I hope you’re reading this from the warmth of home. If where you are is anywhere like where I am right now, you’re glad to have good insulation, heat, and a roof over your head to keep the freezing rain off.

But human beings have not always been so cozy. This and many other facts about the evolution of home life are explored in Bill Bryson’s At Home: A Short History of Private Life, our February book club selection. We’ll begin discussing At Home next week, putting modern home life into a historical context.

The book delves into all sorts of illuminating topics. When did people stop wandering and settle down in one place? Where did corn come from? Why do we use salt and pepper instead of salt and cinnamon as table spices? Join us next week for our book club conversation, where we’ll explore these questions and many others. Check out the fun video intro for the book:

If you haven’t read the book yet, don’t worry, there’s still time! You can borrow a copy from a friend, get one here, or listen to the audio version while you knit or do whatever handiwork you do. Until next week, happy reading!

Bookishly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on the disappearance of OB tampons and more sustainable alternatives

Ask Umbra Book Club announces ‘At Home’ by Bill Bryson for next read

The (not so) New Agtivist: Joan Gussow, mother of the sustainable food movement






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Ask Umbra Book Club announces ‘At Home’ by Bill Bryson for next read

January 14th, 2011 admin No comments

by Umbra Fisk.

Dearest readers,

Given video games, cable television, and those mysterious things known as Slurpees, it can be easy sometimes to forget that we live in the real world. But we do. We are surrounded by things that were created by real people living at some specific point in history. What better way to understand the world around us than by looking at the things that we have and where they came from, their back story, their longevity or lack thereof? 

In that light, I am pleased to announce this month’s Official Ask Umbra Book Club selection—At Home: A Short History of Private Life, by Bill Bryson.

Bryson skillfully and entertainingly writes “a history of the world without leaving home.” Taking stock of the rooms in his house and their contents, the book explores the origin of cities and agriculture, how we stopped being nomads and started living sedentary lives. Did you know what you ate for dinner last night might have been on the menu of someone alive during the Stone Ages?

The book looks most closely at the past 150 years—the period when our human lives have been most dramatically changed by fossil fuels and the Industrial Revolution. What was life like before oil-and-so-much-else, and how has it fundamentally changed? Read and ye shall see!

We will begin a discussion of the book the week of Feb. 7. You can purchase it here, listen to the audio version, find it used, borrow it from a friend, or check it out of the library. Happy reading!

Historically,
Umbra

Related Links:

The (not so) New Agtivist: Joan Gussow, mother of the sustainable food movement

Ask Umbra gives relationship advice to a couple battling it out over ‘eco-stress’

Ask Umbra Book Club: What should we do about cats killing birds?






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Sex: the next ethical industry?

December 8th, 2010 admin No comments

by Anna Simpson.

A longer version of this article was originally published in Green Futures.

Can the sex industry ever be sustainable? Some find the very question outrageous.
Prostitution and pornography have too much to answer for. There’s the global
spread of HIV, the trafficking of women and children, instances of rape apparently
inspired by violent porn, and unhealthy obsessions with body image provoked by sexualized
clichés of beauty.

But whether we like it or not, one thing is certain: The industry is here to stay. However
hard we might try to regulate or moralize it out of existence—and everyone
from governments to religious campaigners to feminist activists has had a go—the demand remains overwhelming.

And so the question of whether it could become an acceptable—even, dare I say it,
exemplary—industry is far from an idle one. Of course, there’s nothing exemplary
about abuse or exploitation of any sort. But before we assume the sex industry
is all a sad tangle of pimps and victims, it’s worth listening to sex workers
themselves. Syon Khan, an escort from Birmingham, told me, “I choose to be in the industry because I find it suits my personality type … You have to be a people person.”

The common assumption that sex work is inherently dangerous or degrading can, with bitter
irony, actually make life harder for those involved. In November 2010, The Economist warned that laws designed to suppress human trafficking and sexual exploitation, leading to the closure of
bars and brothels, have “helped the police to beat, rob, and rape sex workers ‘with
impunity.’” Citing a report by Human Rights Watch, it asserted, “most migrant sex workers have left home for good reasons of their own—among them a desire to work away from their families, and to earn more money.”

Catherine Stephens of the International Union of Sex Workers agrees. “It’s not only inaccurate to suggest that the majority of sex workers do not choose their profession,” she argues, “it’s also patronizing and disempowering.”

So perhaps it’s time for a more nuanced take on the industry. Two narratives dominate the
media today. On the one hand, you have the commercialized glamour of Belle de Jour, where a few hours’ work funds shopping
sprees and high teas. And on the other, the industry that dare not speak its name, consigned to dark streets and seedy districts; rarely regulated, often criminalized.

There’s some truth in each narrative, but they both contribute to real problems in the
way society deals with sex work. In their own ways, both the glamour and the stigma conspire to promote the objectification of women and their bodies. By defining the prostitute as “other,” they keep sex workers at the margins of society, with little recourse to protection from violence, health risks, and exploitation.

According to stereotype, men who pay for sex are on some power trip. But in the vast
majority of cases, says Belinda Brooks-Gordon of London University’s Birkbeck College, author of The
Price of Sex: Prostitution, Policy and Society
, the reality is very different. She
cites evidence suggesting that many customers would much rather believe that their companion actually desires them and has chosen to be there. “Sex workers [actually] get bored by constant interrogation [from clients] about their well-being,” she says.

Attempts at regulating the industry, from licensed brothels to “toleration zones,” have proved patchy at best. The most effective framework, says Stephens, is New Zealand’s—precisely because it’s extremely light.

Of course, regulation isn’t the
only way to make things better. The whole basis of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) is that businesses don’t always need laws to tell them how to behave. But,
unsurprisingly, CSR professionals aren’t exactly queuing up to challenge the
sex industry. As Solitaire Townsend, chair of Futerra, a sustainable communications
consultancy, puts it, “Whenever people talk about sex, they seem to forget what
they know about sustainability.”

For many, it’s hard to
imagine what a sustainable sex industry would look like. So let’s have a go.
Not for the sake of an agreeable fantasy, but because if we don’t try, we can’t
hope to improve the health, safety, and well-being of those who work in the
industry.

Sexy ethics

So what would be the
characteristics of an ethical sex sector? Decent pay and working conditions are
essential, including safe places to meet and entertain clients. What about an
independent certification body on the Fair Trade model? It could monitor pay
and conditions, and confirm that participants in a porn film or lap-dancing
club are acting out of choice. Just look for the logo on the sign over the door
or in the corner of the video.

Sexual health is, of
course, a major concern. One of the most effective ways to cut HIV transmission
is by ensuring that sex workers have access to condoms and know how to use them
properly. The U.N. estimates that only a third of Asia’s sex workers are
reached by HIV-prevention programs. Few people would see porn as health
education, but Anne Philpott of The Pleasure Project—an international health
education campaign aimed at sex workers—says it’s “perhaps the most
effective vehicle out there” for promoting safe sex. With the internet, global
access to porn has rocketed. It’s impossible to regulate who downloads it, but the
use of condoms onscreen in a sexy way could make a huge difference to bedroom
etiquette across the world.

Individuals
selling sex to others is, of course, just a small part of the sex economy. Far
from being underground or taboo, many aspects are legal, even glorified (think
beautifully crafted lingerie). It’s a trillion-dollar cross-sector industry
spanning live entertainment, pornography, pharmaceutical products, clothes, and
accessories.

Feel like
watching the latest Fair Trade-certified porn film? The actors all enjoy decent
pay, health insurance, and pensions. The carbon impact of the set lighting
and travel is offset through investment in clean, efficient cookstoves sold at
affordable prices to women in rural Africa.

Perhaps you’d
prefer a spot of ethical lap-dancing? You can be sure the performers are
all willing and well-paid: It’s certified by Care and Consent, the highly
reputable international certification body for ethical sex. You tip generously,
knowing that 50 percent of the profits are promised to the local women’s
community center.

Or, maybe best
of all, you opt for an evening in with your sweetheart. You’ve got everything
you need: condoms made from rubber tapped sustainably in Brazil, hand-carved
FSC-certified sex toys, and delicious Fair Trade dark chocolate body paint.

Tempted? You’re
not alone. Brooks-Gordon’s research has convinced her that there is huge latent
demand for an ethical sex industry. Not only do most clients want to feel
wanted, she says; many would be hugely relieved to know that the sex workers in
their favorite porn film, on stage at their club, or on offer through their
escort agency are there by consent, paid a decent wage, and have access to
services that promote health and welfare. Potentially, she says, sex work
offers a pretty progressive working model: “Self-employment, flexible working
hours, the option of working from home—what more could you want?”

Penetrating the industry

Of course, engaging
with this particular sector isn’t as simple as a board-level partnership with H&M
or Shell. We can’t exactly phone up the world’s chief pimp and ask for a
meeting. But, in many instances, the same broad principles can apply. It’s one industry
where consumers have more influence over the supply chain than they care to acknowledge.
A hefty majority of men watch porn, but few admit to it. Certification schemes—monitoring anything from condom use to consent—could help to take away the
shame. Watching the right porn could
even become an act of solidarity with those working in the industry.

Policy makers also have a role to play. “We need the government
to support [sex workers] with the same mechanisms that any industry has: health
care, pension schemes, and so on,” says Sam Roddick of Coco de Mer, an erotic
boutique. “It’s basic stuff, but it would legitimize the business—and then
we could challenge it.”

But politicians aren’t rushing in to take on such a cause. “Very few [members of Parliament] are even willing to
debate the issue,” says Sue Miller, member of the House of Lords.“It
doesn’t exactly play well with your electorate.” Interestingly, there is much
more ready discussion around drugs—which can pose far greater risks to our
mental and physical well-being than (safe) sex, and cause far more disruption
and distress up the supply chain.

Talking point

So why is the sex industry
so difficult to discuss? Some cite the subordination of women; others the 21st century’s
weird mix of prurience and prudery. Philosopher Anthony Grayling traces it back
all the way to the Judeo-Christian obsession with increasing the flock. “[A]nything
that doesn’t result in pregnancy and reproduction is regarded
as in some way aberrant.” The shame of Onan has a lot to answer for.

Whatever the reasons behind it, our reluctance to engage with the sex
industry is doing no one any favors. If we refuse to recognize the value that
sex brings to our society and economy, we certainly can’t add anything to it.
And we won’t do much to reform it, either.

Related Links:

How green is Green Mountain Energy?

Bristol Palin and ‘The Situation’ talk up safe sex [VIDEO]

Rabbit chow filters sex hormones out of wastewater






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

Categories: Working For Jobs Tags: , ,

Is Texas the next solar state?

November 26th, 2010 admin No comments

by Todd Woody.

Amid the holiday week hullabaloo, you might have missed the news that SunPower, the Silicon Valley solar-panel manufacturer, plans to make a major expansion into Texas.

The Lone Star State is, of course, a wind energy giant. But
Texas has remained something of a laggard when it comes to solar power. Despite
the state’s intense sunshine and sky-high air-conditioning bills, it hasn’t
offered the type of incentives that have made California a photovoltaic
powerhouse.

But that could be changing. SunPower, one of the nation’s
biggest solar-panel manufacturers and developers, appears to see a big future
market in Texas, which awarded the company a $2.5 million incentive to expand
its operations there. SunPower said on Tuesday that it will add 450 jobs in
Austin over the next four years.

“Texas has great potential to become a significant
solar market,” SunPower CEO Tom Werner said in a statement. “If
policies creating a stable solar market across Texas are enacted, this
commitment by SunPower could be the start of significantly more investment and
job creation in the state by the rapidly growing solar industry.”

SunPower said Austin will become one of the company’s top
three office locations in the U.S.

The solar industry clearly wants to encourage Texas to step
up to the plate. Next year the industry’s big trade show, Solar Power
International, will take place in Dallas, the first time in years it will be held outside of
California.

Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries
Association, an industry trade group, told me at a dinner at this year’s confab
in Los Angeles that the decision to move the show to Texas was made in large
part to demonstrate to state legislators that solar is a big industry
they should embrace. 

Related Links:

Ontario feed-in tariffs creating solar jobs at the cost of a donut per month

How green is Green Mountain Energy?

Increasing on-site consumption of distributed solar






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

Categories: Working For Jobs Tags: , , ,