This small wind turbine was on display alongside other green tech at the athletic pavilion at Rio+20. Photo: Brian Clark Howard

The UN’s Sustainable Energy for All initiative aims to drive economic development, improve living conditions, and protect the planet by meeting growing energy demands with renewable, environmentally responsible sources. Will Rio+20 be someday seen as the launchpad for these accomplishments or simply another missed opportunity?

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon touted the new program at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). Still in its first year, Sustainable Energy for All has already engaged governments, businesses, and other groups to assess their national energy sectors and drive strategic reforms in pursuit of three year 2030 goals:

-Universal access to modern energy services

-Doubling the share of renewable energy in use today

-Doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency

“Achieving sustainable energy for all is not only possible, but necessary. It is the golden thread that connects development, social inclusion, and environmental protection,” said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Rio. “This initiative is already mobilizing significant action from all sectors of society. Working together, we can provide solutions that drive economic growth, expand equity and reduce the risks of climate change.”

Rio+20 attendees highlighted some of the many commitments already announced under the sweeping program. Business and investors have rallied some $50 billion to the cause so far, while governments, development banks, and other organizations have kicked in tens of billions more. More than 1 billion people stand to benefit from improved access to energy through both off-the-grid initiatives and improvements to conventional power structures.

Sharing developed world technologies with those abroad the EU’s “Energizing Development” program will give 500 million people access to sustainable energy services by 2030, and the United States has pledged some $42 billion (U.S.) in grants or loans for government regulatory programs and efforts to leverage private investments in clean energy. Developing nations from Ghana to Vietnam have launched national energy action plans under the program, and international funders include The World Bank, Bank of America, and the OPEC Fund for International Development.

Corporations are also investing in the sustainable initiative, from the tech leader Microsoft to the Italian energy giant Eni. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and 40 other professional associations are mobilizing more than 2 million members to support sustainable energy. Even the rock band Linkin Park is spearheading a “Power the World” campaign, under the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, to fight energy poverty.

Universal Access to Modern Energy Services by 2030

It’s easy to take power for granted in the developed world but one in five people globally, some 1.3 billion in all, don’t have reliable access to electricity. Ninety-five percent of these people live in developing Asia or sub-Saharan Africa. Many suffer health problems from cooking with toxic smoke-producing fuels and a lack of modern health facilities, inadequate educational opportunities, and stunted opportunities for environmental growth.

UN officials estimate that universal access by 2030 can become a reality at a cost of less than $50 billion (U.S.) a year—and that private sector investment is key to that effort.

Such investments stand to pay economic dividends as well. As people gain access to energy they launch a wide range of educational and economic initiatives from more productive farming practices to cottage manufacturing or home-based businesses. With the revenue earned through such ventures a new group of people can become more regular consumers of goods.

Doubling the Share of Renewable Energy in Use

Renewable energy sources currently make up about 15 percent of the world’s total use. But solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal sources are capable of producing much more—and the Secretary-General aims to double that total by 2030.

Renewable sources can often bring life-changing power to rural peoples who live far from electrical grids and have little realistic chance of connection to mainstream sources in the near future. Solar lamps allow shopkeepers to stay open at night in Bangladesh. Micro-hydro plants that use gravity and falling water to bring electricity to mountain villages in Nepal. Biomass mini-grids turn waste, like rice husks, into sustainable sources of power across Asia.

The costs of such technologies continue to drop and developed nations, too, are boosting their capacities for power generation through industries like wind and solar. The transition to these power producers creates jobs in the design, manufacture, installation, and maintenance of these system sources on both the industrial and household levels.

Doubling the Rate of Improvement in Energy Efficiency

No matter what type of energy is being used the world will benefit by using less of it to do the same job whether that be powering an appliance, heating a building, or fueling a car. Because fossil fuels are  sure to be a dominant part of the energy mix for decades to come increasing efficiency also means stretching a limited supply farther. That is increasingly important as energy consumption fueled by rising economies like India and China may grow by one-third by 2035.

Burning fewer fossil fuels also means mitigating harmful environmental consequences. The UN estimates that, by 2030, electricity consumption in buildings and industry can be cut by 14 percent due to efficiency gains. Such a drop would eliminate the need for some 1,300 mid-sized power plants.

The shift to energy efficiency also produces green jobs in building or retrofitting green buildings, and producing more efficient refrigerators, furnaces, automobiles and other products. Saving energy makes good business sense as well because it aids the bottom line for both companies and consumers.

The Sustainable Energy for All initiative is ambitious, in fact it’s meant to be world-changing, and it will take years to learn whether the commitments made at Rio truly mark the start of a new sustainable energy era. Some officials, at least, believe there is no turning back.

“Rio+20 marked a watershed understanding the plurality of roles required – alongside governments – to craft the future we want,” said Olav Kjørven, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Development Policy.

Workers train on a micro-hydro plant in Nepal. Photo: Nepal Micro Hydropower Development Association

Nepal’s soaring, snowy mountain peaks are a source of awe. They’re also a source of clean, life-altering power to the people who live in their shadows.

The small Himalayan nation is promoting micro-hydro plants at the village level to produce renewable electricity, and green jobs, for citizens living far off the country’s limited power grid.

Nepal is a poor nation and its rural inhabitants are unlikely to have access to electricity—less than 1/3rd of them do, according to the United Nations Develeopment Program. Expansion of the conventional power grid is unlikely in the near future. It’s already so strained that power outages are common in urban centers, and major resources would be needed to connect remote communities in mountainous terrain.

Meanwhile Nepal’s electric demand is growing at some 7 percent a year. Those without power suffer health problems from cooking with dirty fuels and a lack of medical facilities, limited educational opportunities, and stagnant economic growth. Rural residents have long burned biomass, dung that might have been used as crop-boosting fertilizers or trees, the loss of which causes erosion and produces carbon emissions.

But the Government of Nepal’s Alternative Energy Promotion Centre (AEPC) is administering a micro-hydro program aimed at building community-operated plants that can produce up to 100 kilowatts of power. (Even the smallest conventional hydro dams product 100 times that much). International organizations including the World Bank, and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) help fund the program under the auspices of Renewable Energy for Rural Livelihood (RERL), which aims to amplify earlier successes in bringing small hydro power to hundreds of people, village by village.

The Nepal Micro Hydropower Development Association, an umbrella organization that represents 500-odd private firms currently in the business of providing micro-hydro services in Nepal, estimates that since the industry’s earliest beginnings in the 1960s some 2,200 micro-hydro plants have been put into place that now provide electricity for some 200,000 households.

They are sometimes able to do so more reliably than the country’s main grid. “Even though I live in a remote place the services I get in the village are better than Kathmandu,” one Nepalese villager testified in a UNDP Nepal produced video describing the project.

Letting the River Run

Large-scale hydro projects aren’t always as green as they seem, according to many critics. They flood lands and wreck riverine habitats.

But micro-hydro plants basically just divert flowing river water, with no significant dams, and use the forces of gravity and falling water to spin turbines that generate power before churning the water back into the river for its journey downstream. In these “run of the river” systems water is channeled off through small canals, stored briefly in a settling tank to separate sediment, then dropped through a steep pipeline that delivers it into a turbine. The juice produced by the turning turbine is wired directly to local users.

The 323 operational RERL facilities alone now create more than 600 full-time equivalent jobs and about 2,600 people have been technically trained on how to operate a facility. But micro-hydro’s employment impact goes further and includes specialized training to help spread electric access benefits throughout the community.  Under the program more than 34,000 people, including 15,000 women, have been trained in larger efforts to develop capacity on renewable energy, manage local micro-hydro units and cooperatives, and initiate other environmentally related activities.

Nepal’s micro-hydro ventures are managed by community organizations and all residents are urged to participate and help maintain the systems, educate others in their use, and stoke the growth of other opportunities provided by a reliable access to power. Shops, cottage manufacturing industries, grain mills, restaurants, carpentry shops, pump irrigation, and countless other ventures have spread the economic benefits of initial investment in renewable micro-hydro power.

Other aspects of life have also dramatically improved, many villagers say. Communication can be a challenge in areas where distances may be measured in days walked. Radio, internet, and telephones have alleviated these problems considerably. Medical facilities are also better able to treat people locally and offer a much wider range of essential health services.

Schools have benefited from modern learning tools—as well as simple lighting for study. Tul Bahadur Thapa, a grade 3 student at Shree Tribhuvan secondary school In Kharbang, western Nepal, told UNDP officials about the advantages of his move to this micro-hydropowered school.

“Here, there is a computer lab and my teachers use a projector to teach math, science, and other subjects,” he said. “We use calculators in computers. At times, we also play games on the computer.”

Today’s micro-hydro successes only scratch the surface. The power source has massive potential in a land where snow and ice cover the high peaks—and eventually run downhill as electricity-generating water. The World Bank estimates that only 2 percent of Nepal’s micro-hydro potential has been developed so far and that the total supply from micro-hydro and larger dams alike could reach 83,000 megawatts.

Nepal's growing micro-hydro industry provides green jobs as well as clean power. Photo: Nepal Micro Hydropower Development Association

Challenges to Micro-Hydro

But even as the practice grows there are problems with which to contend. Costs can be steep for impoverished communities. Foreign and domestic grant monies for the projects are provided by RERL and managed through Community Energy Funds established by each Micro Hydropower Facility Group. But communities are responsible for covering up to 50 percent of the project costs.

Loans are issued to poor households or business people wishing to use power for revenue-producing activities. Modest fees are also charged for electrical use and returned to help cover project costs. Those who are unable to pay or secure loans can contribute in kind or donate labor like canal cleaning and repairing.

And as elsewhere in the world gains aren’t distributed equally in Nepalese society. Agencies are striving to ensure that women and minority groups like the “untouchable” Dalit peoples are full participants in the benefits of these projects, lest they become divisive and counterproductive within communities of “haves” and “have nots.”

But micro-hydro’s benefits seem to far outweigh such concerns and growth of the industry is moving forward apace. The UNDP estimates that 15 percent of Nepal’s electricity will be generated from micro- and mini-hydro (less than 1,000 kW) plants by the end of 2012. And the agency also estimates that each new micro-hydro system built creates 40 new businesses, putting Nepalis to work at building a sustainable economy with green energy from the Himalayas’ eternal snows.

Solar panels on the roof of Smith & Associates in Houston. Photo: Smith & Associates

The U.S. renewable energy industry may be heading towards a “clean tech cliff.” Three-quarters of the government incentive funds that have helped drive tremendous growth in industries like solar and wind are set to expire between now and 2014. For good or ill, the political decisions made between now and then will define a pivitol period for clean energy.

Will congressional action deal a severe blow to clean energy technologies that are just beginning to compete with fossil fuels in terms of cost and efficiency? Or deliver a golden opportunity to revisit the way clean tech is subsidized, trimming waste and pushing renewables to start standing on their own economic feet earlier?

“It’s a pretty serious juncture we’re facing,” said Brookings Institution fellow Mark Muro, one of the authors of a new report entitled Beyond Boom and Bust: Getting Clean Energy Policy Right.

The problem, Muro said, is a rapidly approaching, extremely broad pullback in tax credits, grants, and other subsidies. “There’s a massive sea change in the amount of federal support flowing into these industries that still require subsidies to compete with fossil fuels,” he said.

The total amount of federal government spending in clean tech will fall 75 percent from its 2009 high by 2014, if current policies remain in place, the report states. Funding will plunge from 44.3 billion in 2009 to just 11 billion in 2014. In fact by year’s end overall federal support for clean energy will be cut in half compared to 2011 levels.

“By our count, 63 of 92 federal clean energy finance policies in place in 2009 will have expired by the end of 2014 absent congressional action,” Muro and coauthors write.

“What’s unfortunate is that this federal drawdown comes just as some of these industies are beginning to approach competitiveness and are likely to approach a degree of price parity (with fossil fuels) in the next five years or so,” Muro added. “So I think the challenge is for policy makers to figure out how to manage that reduction of support mechanisms at the right pace. If it’s too fast the long-term future of the industry is going to be damaged. If it’s too slow, taxpayers are going to revolt and we’ll be doing energy consumers a disservice. It’s a tricky, fascinating moment.”

Will the Boom Continue—or Bust?

Clean tech growth has been robust during the last decade or so, even as the global economy faced recession and other stiff headwinds. Renewable enegy sectors became more economically viable and efficient, and they’ve created some 70,000 U.S. jobs between 2006 and 2011 in the face of widespread unemployment.

Figures from Clean Energy Trends 2012 show that the solar photovvoltaic industry grew from $2.5 billion (U.S.) in 2000 to $91.6 billlion in 2011. Wind power grew from $4 billion (U.S.) to $71.5 billion (U.S.) over that same period, and biofuels, which were a $15.77 billion business in 2005, the first year stats were available, were worth $83 billion (U.S.) by 2011.

But much of that growth has been spurred by federal policies, now in doubt, which in turn attracted private investment at a rate of 3 or 4 private dollars for each federal dollar, Muro said.

(In the name of keeping consumer costs down federal and state governments also subsidize fossil fuels, to the tune of billions of dollars, with incentives like tax breaks, farm fuel assistance, low-income heating help, and many others.)

One prime example is the production tax credit, which has fuelled a decade’s worth of wind power development and is set to expire at year end. Under this incentive, installed U.S. wind capacity doubled between 2008 and 2010. Muro believes the credit will eventually be extended, but the current uncertainty is a recurring problem that stymies investment and growth. “And that’s just one program,” he added. “There are 91 others.”

Lack of predictability leads to uneven growth, boom and bust cycles in investment and strategic commitments, and potentially longer time periods before renewable energy industries become truly competitive on their own.

But the looming expiration of so many subsidies presents an opportunity to smooth this cycle, produce clean, cheap energy more quickly, and elimate wasteful spending that draws public ire—like the Solyandra loans. Getting there will require a fine balance, Muro cautioned.

“We think it’s right to examine these subsidies and rethink how we support industries,” he said. “First we should make clear that subsidation is temporary, that the goal is to help industries transition to cost competitiveness with other forms of energy, and that in each case they have a predictable phase out.”

“For example the production tax credit for wind has been nearly ended or ended and reuthorized 4 or 5 times in a decade, each time creating disruption to the industry,” he said. “We think instead of having battles every two years about whether a particular subsity is to be ended or resumed why not establish a 6 year downramp? Why don’t we move to a subsidy that stays at the same level for 3 years and then has a 3 year downramp and then that’s it? I think by and large these industries would welcome that and find it preferable to the current reperatory of drama over renewing subsidies.”

Private investors would also be likely to respond to predictability, Muro said, and commit the dollars that really drive growth. Venture Captial funding makes up a big piece of the clean energy pie. In 2001, according to a recent study by Cleantech Group, PricewaterhhouseCoopers, and the National Venture Capital Association, only about 1 pecent of venture capital investments in U.S. companies went to clean tech in 2001. But by 2011 that percentage had soared to 23 percent—and a toal of more than $6.5 billion.

“Federal investments are drawing three to four times the amount of follow-on private investment,” Muro said. “But confusion around the status of particular subsidy provisions discourages investment, disupts the ability of mangers to develop projects, and creates a whole lot of uncertainty that I think is weighing heavily on clean tech.”

That’s one reason why simply re-upping existing subsidies is the wrong approach, the study concluded.

“The status quo is not only not going to continue because there is no public or political appeal for it, it’s also not the best way of supporting these industries,” Muro said. “We certainly think wholesale termination of these is not a viable way to proceed but reupping them as they are is not good policy. There’s a sweet spot somewhere in there and I think it’s politically viable. People on Capitol Hill realize that it’s unthinkable to simply cut all these industries off cold turkey in 2013. So I really remain optomistic for some creative solutions.”

Europe has supported renewables with steadier and larger subsidies, including feed-in tariffs, which enable renewables users to sell electricity back to the grid at a fixed, high price. Amidst this year’s financial turmoil, however, Spain slashed subsidies for renewable energy and other European leaders like Germany and Britain have trimmed funding as well.

This week, representatives from Uganda’s government and its private organic trade association are at Rio+20 to tout their nation’s place as producer and exporter of organic products, including fresh and dried fruits, coffee, cotton, and many others.

Tom Okurut, executive director of Uganda’s National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), issued a pre-Rio+20 statement that said his country will prioritize organic agriculture during this week’s Brazil meeting, for the benefit of Uganda’s economy, society, and environment.

“Organic farming is in line with objectives of sustainable development and therefore Uganda will showcase its organic agriculture potential, which will open up markets for organic products not yet selling on the international market,” said Okurut.

Tradition of Organic Farming

Informal organic production methods have been the way of many Ugandan farmers for centuries—thanks to remarkably low levels of fertilizer use.  Even among African nations, where use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers is low, Uganda’s farmers stand out. Due to expense, availability issues, and lack of training in proper fertilizer use, they add only about one kilogram of fertilizer per hectare, less than 3 percent of the amount used in East Africa and only 11 percent of the already-low Sub Saharan average (nine kilograms per hectare). This had led to declining productivity for some conventional crops, but created an opportunity for organic alternatives.

Certified organic production, with regulated use of natural techniques like crop and grazing rotations, natural pest predators, livestock waste fertilizers, and compost, didn’t take off in Uganda until the 1990s. Uganda’s private sector promoted the practice through the efforts of the National Organic Agricultural Movement of Uganda (NOGAMU), an association that unites organic farmers, processors, exporters, and organizations to promote and develop the sector. NOGAMU was  founded in 2001. The country adopted the Uganda Organic Standard (Ugocert) in 2004 and in 2007 joined in a regional standard, the East African Organic Products Standard, with Tanzania, Kenya, Burundi, and Rwanda.

Despite many well-documented political troubles during this era, Uganda’s growth in organics was impressive.

Between 2002 and 2007, the nation’s ranks of certified organic farmers swelled by 359 percent and the acreage being farmed organically grew by 60 percent. By 2003 Uganda had more land devoted to organic farming than any African nation and more than twice that of its closest competitors (Tanzania and South Africa).

200,000 Organic Farmers in Uganda

Exports of organic products, which stood at U.S.$3.7 million in 2003-04, had climbed to $22.8 million by 2007-08. Today NOGAMU lists more than 200,000 organic farmers in the country, and more than 250 organic organizations to which they belong.

And organic farming also drives growth in productivity that allows farmers to get the most out of every inch of soil—a huge boon in Uganda where 95 percent of the nation’s farmers work less than 10 acres, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Animals Industry, and Fisheries. A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) joint study on transitions to organic agriculture and productivity gains found that across Africa the increases in yields were 100 percent, and in East Africa up 125 percent, after moving to organic production.

“The green economy is important to Uganda; it creates a lot of opportunities to create wealth for different actors from farmers to traders in a way which is more sustainable, in a way that can protect the environment.” Musa Muwanga, the CEO of NOGAMU, said for a UNEP-UNCTAD film project aired at the 2011 UN Conference on Least Developed Countries in Istanbul, Turkey.

The same film project shared the experiences of Vincent Ssonko, an organic pineapple farmer in Uganda. (Watch the video at the top of the page.)

“The main benefit I’ve had from organic agriculture is an increase in income. I’ve been able to educate my children, and I’ve also been able to harvest enough food to feed my family.”

“The main benefit I’ve had from organic agriculture is an increase in income. I’ve been able to educate my children, and I’ve also been able to harvest enough food to feed my family,” Ssonko said.

The UNEP-UNCTAD report revealed that an average pineapple worth perhaps 200 Ugandan shillings (about 8 cents U.S.) in a local market can fetch 600 from an exporter who will package it and ship it to Europe. And exporters like Biofresh also produce good, steady jobs for Ugandans while promoting education and further development of organic farming.

Not all of Uganda’s organic products are shipped overseas. NOGAMU runs a shop and a delivery service in the capital city to supply a modest but growing demand from local homes and hotels. Local organic favorites include staple foods like matooke (steamed bananas), millet, cassava, local vegetables, fruits, and juices, and livestock products including eggs.

Greener agriculture is benefiting Uganda’s environment as well as the economy, important in a nation known for natural wonders like the famed mountain gorillas. Conventional farms can emit an additional two-thirds as much greenhouse gas, spray pesticides which are dangerous to farm families, and use synthetic fertilizers that foul aquatic ecosystems.

Organic Farming Not Easy

While past successes are encouraging, Uganda’s organic industry also faces challenges. Organic farming isn’t easy. Producing certified crops takes patience and much proper training in the effective use of organic techniques to battle familiar farming challenges like pests and soil degradation. Farmers must also be educated in the ultimate economic benefits of adopting a more labor-intensive method of agriculture. Some schools and other educational opportunities exist to promote the practice, but more are needed in order for growth to continue.

Still, future growth seems likely because organic’s rewards and incentives, in the form of a wide export market, are tangible.

The market for organic food and drink is estimated at U.S.$50 billion and growing by IFOAM, the global organization of organic trade. While much of that product demand originates in wealthy developed nations, it creates opportunity for developing countries like Uganda to build a sustainable export business that protects natural resources while boosting the economy through the creation of long-term green jobs.

At Rio+20, stimulating the green economy is a high priority. Photo: Brian Clark Howard

RIO DE JANEIRO Delegates in Rio will need to take a leap of faith and agree on concepts like the green economy and sustainable development goals without really knowing what they involve, suggest experts on the sidelines of the Rio+20 Earth Summit.

“The green economy is a black box right now. We don’t know what will make it tick,” said Davinder Lamba, director of the Mazingira Institute, a sustainable development NGO in Nairobi, Kenya.

Overcoming the reluctance and opposition to creating green economies will require “transparency and agency,” Lamba said at the Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development, a five-day meeting on the sidelines of Rio+20.

By “agency” Lamba means that those at the bottom, the poor and poorest countries, must have a role in shaping what green economies are and how they will work.

Conventional economic terms like capital don’t apply to many of the important aspects of green economies and sustainability and must be questioned.

“We need to be very critical of economic terminology and concepts” in making the transition to greener economies, said Tim Jackson, an economist and professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey, UK.

Natural capital – the goods and services provided by nature such as clean water, air, and soil – is a very different kind of capital than manufactured goods. If a natural landscape is left alone its capital stocks improve, whereas products like automobiles or computers lose their value over time, Jackson told TerraViva.

The same applies to the term “productivity,” which is considered universally good in economics. “Applying productivity to services like those provided by doctors, teachers, artists makes no sense,” he said.

There is wide recognition that every country is wrong to focus on increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) because it ignores environmental and social impacts, said Ronaldo Seroa da Motta, senior researcher at the Research Institute for Applied Economics (IPEA) in Rio de Janeiro.

However, it is very difficult to measure “natural capital” and “social capital” and how to account for changes or flows, da Motta told conference attendees.

One of potential outcomes from the Rio+20 Summit on Sustainable Development here is agreement amongst nations to establish an alternative measure to GDP such as a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) to measure what GDP leaves out. A GPI will be zero if the financial costs of crime and pollution equal the financial gains in production of goods and services, all other factors being constant.

“We don’t really know what a Green GDP (like GPI) is at this point. Certainly not enough to make daily decisions,” de Motta said.

Many years ago there was little information or data to support the “Brown GDP” so there is no reason not to continue to pursue a Green GDP, he said.

But doing so requires clarity, openness to diversity of views, honesty about winners and losers, and real democracy said Melissa Leach, director of the Pathways to Sustainability Centre at Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex in the UK.

The concept of “sustainability” is a social and political term, not a neutral one as many assume. There will always be many different visions of sustainability depending on the context, Leach said. Those visions arise from our worldviews and values, which shape our perception of the world.

“We need to challenge the dominant pathways,” both the status quo and the dominant vision for a green economy, she said.

That is why absolute clarity is needed on what the goals of a green economy are, as well as consensus on what the terms involved like “growth,” “progress,” or “prosperity” really mean.

Previously published on TerraViva and reprinted with permission. All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service (2012).

The movement to make fisheries sustainable is creating "blue jobs." Photo: NGS stock photograph by B. Anthony Stewart

There are a lot of fish in the sea. But their numbers are no match for growing human appetites and the ultra-efficient fisheries that have sprung up to feed our hunger. A shift towards “blue job” fisheries is urgently needed, experts say, if the oceans are to nourish future generations as they have in the past.

(Discussions are ongoing at Rio+20 on making international oceans policy more sustainable.)

About three billion people count on fish and other marine species as their primary source of protein, and about 8 percent of the world’s population are fishermen. Until recently, many people believed that the ocean held so much marine life that even such huge numbers of humans could not deplete its bounty.

But since the mid 20th century industrial fishing operations have used ever-improving technology to fish farther, faster, and longer—rapidly emptying waters of seafood to satisfy the swelling hunger of Earth’s growing population. Many fisheries have shown steep declines for decades and some studies estimate that  populations of large ocean fish are just 10 percent of their pre-industrial levels.

Sustainability is the key concept for successful management of both fish stocks and fisheries jobs themselves,  said Rashid Sumalia, director of the Fisheries Center at the University of British Columbia. “Sustainable jobs, to me, are based on taking what the resource can withstand year in and year out. That’s crucial because right now at the moment we are killing future jobs for current ones. That’s not sustainable. That’s not green jobs. You want the jobs you create today not to prevent future generations from having these jobs but we’re front loading jobs because it’s politically more convenient.”

Blue jobs fishermen use science-based stock management programs and only harvest sustainable levels of fish.

“Based on stock assessments we can estimate how much fish can be taken out safely, that’s the total allowable catch,” Sumaila said. “To me a green fishery is one that takes only the additional growth from a resource, so that we don’t eat up all the capital or the biomass base.”

Blue fishermen also use environmentally friendly methods and gear rather than less enlightened techniques that not only harvest too many fish but destroy the habitat they need to survive and reproduce. Using long lines to hook-catch fish, for example, is a blue alternative to bottom-trawling with enormous drag nets.

“The nets just plow up the bottom of the entire ocean, which is crazy,” said Sumaila. “It destroys the homes of the fish, the places where they can grow and live. Long lines are more selective and they are also good in the market—because those fish are caught nicely they fetch higher prices.”

Fisheries managers can employ tools like marine reserves and protected areas and strict catch limits to achieve sustainability while providing blue jobs for generations to come. But they can only succeed if they can overcome pressures that continue to support unsustainable practices—like simply allowing too much fishing.

“Politics come into it, economics come into it. And most of the time we overdo it and that’s why we have this fishing problem,” Sumaila said.

Compounding this quandary is the international nature of the resource, which leads national fisheries to compete for their own interests—sometimes to the detriment of all. “The ocean is essentially one big global ocean,” Sumaila said. “What you do on one side effects the other. The interests of nations do come into play but it’s necessary to deal with this as a global problem.”

Global factors are also growing the problem. Earth’s surging population is putting increased strain on marine resources. And it’s not just a matter of more mouths to feed, Sumaila said, but also a matter of changing tastes and the increasing ability to finance them. “In many parts of the world, Asia is a big one, incomes are rising so people have the money to buy more fish,” Sumaila said. “So it’s an increase in the total number of people but also an increase in consumption per capita of fish. And there just aren’t enough fish in the sea.”

Aquaculture, also known as fish farming, can help to fill the gap. In fact today half of the world’s fish supply isn’t caught by anyone—it’s farmed. As wild stocks decline and demand grows the role of aquaculture is sure to surge in the future, but it can’t save us, Sumaila cautioned, because the practice has sustainability issues of its own. Blue fish farmers are needed.

Fish farms often pollute coastal waters and lakes with waste, sometimes creating ecological havoc, causing dead zones or unleashing disease on native populations. And many fish are raised on fish meal, which means someone has to catch and grind up countless wild fish, resulting in a zero sum or perhaps a net loss for the ocean resources consumed to produce “sustainable” farmed fish. Better, bluer methods are needed and some are already being developed. A few species, tilapia for example, can be raised primarily on renewable vegetarian feed.

But no matter how blue we can make fish farms, Sumaila cautioned, they can’t take the place of our oceans.

“One thing I worry about with aquaculture is this feeling you get sometimes when you kind of read between the lines that we can let wild fish go because there is aquaculture,” he said. “That scares me a lot, especially for poor and developing countries (where people depend on catching their own food). Whatever we do with aquaculture it should be complimentary to wild fisheries.”

What can be done? Sumaila said consumers can make a big difference by choosing sustainably caught fish, identified by resources like the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program, and even by choosing to eat fish less often.

“Personally, I’ve been limiting how much fish I eat,” he said. “I gave a talk at an AAAS meeting entitled “Whose Fish Are You Eating—Yours or Your Grandchildren’s? And I often quote Adam Smith in these lectures, from his own 1766 Lecture on Jurisprudence. ‘The Earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity.’”

“I think when it comes to our fish we have to weigh that and ultimately begin to think that way.”

Brian Handwerk is a freelance writer based in Amherst, New Hampshire. 

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis visits a job training facility in San Diego in January 2012. One of the challenges for the green jobs sector is employee training. Photo: U.S. Department of Labor

We’ve written before about the benefits of green jobs, so you may be wondering, “How do I get one?”

It’s true the green jobs sector is growing, but there are also a few challenges that need to be overcome to accelerate growth.

These include:

It’s the Economy

In tough economic times there’s simply a lot less money to go around. That can be a particular challenge for many green businesses, like renewable energy, that require significant government incentives to compete today while gearing up for a greener future.

In shifting political sands government programs to help green businesses are subject to change or cancellation in the short term, which makes long-term institutional planning tough.

“Take the production tax credit, that naturally has an effect on the wind and solar industries moving them from boom to bust,” said David Foster, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to the green economy. The credit, which currently expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt-hour for the first 10 operating years of a renewable plant’s lifetime. “We’re currently heading towards a bust cycle on wind because Congress has not be able to reauthorize the production tax credit.”

“It’s tough for businesses to formulate plans or chart how long it will take to recover costs when government’s position is uncertain on these kinds of measures,” Foster added, and that’s curbing growth in many green sectors, including transportation.

“They’ve been unable to reauthorize the surface transportation act for two years and put more money into refurbishing our transportation infrastructure,” Foster said. The Highway Bill, which funds the nation’s roadways, expired in 2009 and operates under temporary extensions, blocking long-term planning. “We need a long-term extension to green the transportation infrastructure but short-sighted government inaction on this issue and others has been a big problem,” he said.

Sticker Shock

Many of today’s consumers look to cut costs wherever possible. And many green products and services simply cost more upfront than the competition. That means people may buy less of them, which curbs growth and job creation among the companies that produce them.

Shoppers know that going green on many day-to-day purchases also results in a bit less green in their wallets. Organic foods cost more,  green cleaning supplies from laundry to detergent to baby wipes tend to cost more. And while some people’s principles may preclude them from cutting costs by shifting to a slightly lighter shade of green consumption, many others decide that bottom-line concerns are, well, the bottom line. And nothing’s quite as green, environmentally or economically, as simply making due or repurposing something one already has—a practice that doesn’t help job growth.

The 2011 Green Brands Survey from the WPP communications services group surveyed more than 9,000 people in eight countries and found that while consumer interest in green products is expanding prices still drive product choice. In developed nations about 20 percent of respondents said they’d spend more than 10 percent more on a green product—meaning that some 80 percent of the market would not.

Skeptics Abound

The green jobs movement has always had its skeptics, including those who suggest that investments in green energy simply aren’t cost-competitive. Spending money propping those industries up, goes a theory argued by libertarian Cato Institute scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren and others, means higher electricity costs, fewer total jobs as established industries decline, and less money to be spent elsewhere—all of which they argue will produce a drag on the economy rather than a boost. (The report does not evaluate the environmental benefits of greener energy.)

Some consumers also remain skeptical about green products, doubting that environmentally responsible laundry detergent will get their clothes as clean as the old standbys, or that a new, energy efficient solar water heater can really keep their showers piping hot. Electric cars are viewed by some as futuristic at best, gimmicks at worst, even as the number of satisfied hybrid drivers on the roads increases each year.

Perceptions sometimes die hard and some green businesses must overcome a reluctance to believe that new, environmentally responsible ways of doing business can produce the same levels of quality to which people have become accustomed—while delivering economic gains as well.

Patience is a (Rare) Virtue

Some of the green economy’s major drivers, like renewable energy sources that can help ween us off fossil fuels, are bound to take time. The developed world’s energy infrastructure is largely built to transport and consume fossil fuels, not alternatives. And alternative energy and transportation technologies still have developmental technical hurdles to overcome, like battery and smart grid technologies that can make intermittent power producers like solar and wind deliver constant energy wherever and whenever it’s needed.

Consumers must also practice patience, particularly with big ticket items.  Hybrid vehicles may cost $5,000 more than their counterparts, and more efficient appliances from furnaces to refrigerators also carry price premiums. Retrofitting a home to save energy costs money in the short run, rather than putting it in the homeowner’s pocket. Or course, many of these investments pay back not only the planet but their owners—in the form of cheaper operating costs that can make such investments pay for themselves over time. But earning those returns requires some patience.

Worker Shortages

In an era of high unemployment the idea of a worker shortage may seem strange, but some green businesses report that they are hampered by a lack of qualified employees, which may curb the growth of these industries. A McGraw-Hill Construction study suggests that the current downturn in the construction industry may temporarily mask a shortage of skilled green workers. Some 69 percent of the architects, engineers, and contractors surveyed expect skilled workforce shortages in the next three years.

They’ll be needed for LEED green building projects, the report adds, because 45 percent of all design and construction jobs are projected to be green (that is more than 50 percent constituted of LEED projects) during that same time period. Some alternative energy firms are also encountering a lack of engineers qualified for the new demands of producing power from renewable sources.

The more accurate way to frame this problem is not as a shortage of workers but, for some skill sets, a need for the training that can bring employees up to snuff. That dynamic makes this green job “challenge” a definite opportunity for both training institutions and workers eager to gain new skills for a growing green economy.

Brian Handwerk is a freelance writer based in Amherst, New Hampshire. 

The majority of green jobs are in manufacturing, which can make them tougher to pinpoint. Photo: Robert Scoble, Flickr Creative Commons

Green jobs are a hot topic in an era of high unemployment. But defining exactly what green jobs are, how they  can be created, and how they benefit the economy and environment presents quite a challenge.

The Obama administration made green jobs an early focus and set a goal of creating some 5 million of them during this decade. To that end nearly $100 billion was earmarked for the green economy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

In March the U.S Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a long-awaited study attempting to quantify just how many green jobs now exist. The report estimated that some 3.1 million Americans hold green jobs. Those jobs comprise almost 2.5 percent of the country’s total employment, according to the report, which found California tops in the total number of green jobs (338,400) and Vermont with the highest green job percentage at 4.4 percent. Manufacturing accounts for the lion’s share of today’s green jobs, more than 462,000 of the 3.1 million total, according to the BLS.

BLS standards also tried to define the tricky term itself, suggesting that in general “green jobs” typically fit into one of two categories. The first group includes “jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.” This means all the jobs at a solar panel plant are green jobs. The second sector includes “jobs in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.” So someone making energy improvements at a factory, even one that produces diesel trucks, would qualify.

The BLS grouped green jobs into categories that include renewable energy production (like wind and solar), products or services that boost energy efficiency (including appliances, cars, and buildings), pollution reduction and recycling, conservation of natural resources, environmental compliance, and education.

But critics have leveled broadsides at some of these green jobs claims, seizing on the inclusion of positions like garbage collector and city bus driver that may not seem so green at first blush and are longstanding positions in any event.  And is a secretary at a nuclear power plant really “greener” than a secretary at a furniture factory?

Scholars at the Heritage Foundation took issue with the notion that government subsidies and spending are helping to create large numbers of new green jobs, according to a report by David Kreutzer,

For example, “The largest green jobs providers in manufacturing are steel mills (43,658 jobs),” Kreutzer writes. “Over 50 percent of all steel mill jobs are green. This high fraction of greenness is driven by the industry’s reliance on scrap steel for the majority of its inputs, not by the greenness of the goods produced with the steel. The trend toward greater use of scrap steel is decades-long and is not the result of any green jobs initiatives.”

Kreutzer also questioned the extent of green jobs in renewable energy, as described in the BLS report.

“The electric power generation industry has 44,152 green jobs,” Kreutzer wrote. “This may seem like a lot, but only 4,700 are in renewable power generation, including 2,200 in wind, 1,100 in biomass, 600 in geothermal, and only 400 in solar. Though these totals do not include jobs in the manufacture or installation of these power sources, they pale to the equivalent green jobs count in nuclear (35,755), which accounts for over 80 percent of all green jobs in electric power generation.”

Since no new U.S. nuclear plants have been built in 30 years, Kreutzer added, none of the nuclear industry’s green jobs can be the result of any green subsidies or policies. And, of course, the failure of government-subsidized solar panel maker Solyndra has led some to suggest that supporting such industries isn’t the best use of taxpayer funds with job creation at a premium.

Dave Foster, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to the green economy, disagrees. Foster describes a very successful public-private partnership in creating new green jobs. “The government role has been proven across a whole variety of sectors,” he said, “like construction, energy, and service industries.

“We assessed the Recovery Act programs at their two-year anniversary and demonstrated that they have done two really important things. They’ve created or saved almost a million jobs. And, of equal import, they have leveraged private investment back into the economy at the rate of 3 dollars of private investment to every dollar of government grants or tax breaks or other incentives. So green jobs don’t exist only because of government subsidies. In fact the subsidies encourage private investment at a very high rate.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics report didn’t attempt to track how many green jobs are new and have been created by programs under the Obama administration. It did report that 2.3 million were in the private sector, while some 860,000 were public jobs.

How Green Is My Economy?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers were reasonably close to the findings of a similar study, “Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment,” done by the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

“Without a lot of fanfare, the solid Labor Department count demonstrates once and for all something important: that the ‘green’ or ‘clean’ economy exists; that we can define it; that in fact we can count its jobs and measure it and track its progress,” Brookings analyst Mark Muro wrote.

Muro called green jobs “a modest-sized, manufacturing-oriented, unavoidable piece of America’s next economy.” His team’s Brookings Institute study reported that most green jobs are in already-mature segments like manufacturing or public services including wastewater and mass transit. A smaller piece of the pie includes newer green energy ventures like solar, wind, and smart grid endeavors—but in recent years these sectors have been adding jobs at rates that far outstrip national averages.

The Brookings study also found that the clean economy has median wages 13 percent higher than average U.S. figures, and that the industry offers better opportunities for low to middle-skilled employees than the economy at large.

And Muro’s group charted where green jobs are found. The report reveals that most (64 percent) are in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas and that, regionally, the South and West are hotbeds for green job hunters.

How much can growing green sectors really drive future growth? That remains to be seen. But advocates, like BlueGreen Alliance’s Dave Foster, say they’ve already come a long way.

“When I first became focused on this work 10 years ago a lot of people thought the green economy was far off in the future and made up of jobs and of skills that hadn’t been invented yet,” said BlueGreen Alliance’s Foster. “It was a hypothetical economy. But today 2.5 or 3 million people are employed in what we define as the green economy. We’ve demonstrated that it’s real and it cuts across all traditional job skills.”

Solar panels provided by Grameen Shakti (like this one in Khulna) help bring power to rural Bangladesh. Photo: Marufish, Flickr Creative Commons

In the developing world green jobs can have a double-barreled impact; providing work and wages while tapping renewable energy technology to deliver “developed nation” services to people who desperately need them.

These twin benefits are converging in Bangladesh, where female entrepreneurs are gaining economic independence as solar power contractors and providing life-changing electricity to their nation’s many poor and “off-the-grid” communities—home to some 70 percent of all Bangladeshis.

Women are well-suited for this role in Bangladesh, where they are often responsible for all household management activities, including providing power—be that from kerosene, wood gathering, or solar power.  Solar jobs have made many of these women primary wage earners as well. They provide a good income, perhaps $150 (U.S.) a month, a number similar to Bangladesh’s Gross National Income Per Capita.

Bangladesh’s programs to train poor women as technicians for solar home systems arm them with the expertise to assemble, maintain, and repair household solar arrays. The technology enables millions to “leapfrog” into a world of modern lighting and communications without the construction of conventional electric infrastructure, which for many won’t be available in the foreseeable future. Clean solar also replaces dirty, nonrenewable fuels like kerosene (for lighting) and wood (for cooking) that have harmful impacts on both human health and the environment.

The government-run Infrastructure Development Company Limited launched a Solar Energy Program in 2003 supported by the World Bank and other international funders. Using grants, tax breaks, technical assistance, loans, and other incentives they spurred partner organizations to invest in spreading solar technology towards the goal of widely disseminating household solar system throughout the country. Some 50,000 home units had been installed by 2005. Today that number is approaching 1.5 million installed and the target is 2.5 million by 2014.

The nation’s top solar training program partner is Grameen Shakti, a non-profit founded by Dhaka’s Grameen Bank, which had driven the installation of nearly 800,000 solar home units. (Grameen Bank is the world’s biggest and best-known “microfinancing” institution with some 8 million borrowers, mostly poor rural women.)

Grameen Shakti has established dozens of Grameen Technology Centers, which are essential to the solar program. These centers provide jobs manufacturing accessories for solar home systems in the localities where they are used, and train women as solar technicians who can then sign annual contracts with home owners to maintain and service the units that are sprouting up at an impressive pace. More than 1,000 women have been fully trained in these facilities and thousands more have played related roles in solar construction and installation. Training for solar contractors under the public-private partnership is also being supported by the International Labor Organization’s Green Jobs in Asia Project.

The simple solar systems sprouting up across Bangladesh have a photovoltaic module, a rechargeable battery that enables both day and night use, and a number of lamps and fixtures. They come in different configurations. A simple 20Wp (Watts peak) system to run two 5W lamps and a mobile charger for 4 or 5 hours a day costs $170 USD. A more complete system of 130 Wp, which can run 11 7W-lamps, a TV, and a mobile charger for the same time period costs $940 USD.

Those fees, even when reduced in part by grant money, are a significant percentage of what many Bangladeshis make in a year. But the systems are financed, often at 15 percent down with the remainder paid off over 3 years. Many homeowners are able to make their regular payments by simply reallocating the money they now dedicate to expensive fuels like kerosene. “Micro-utility” systems can also be created that allow power-sharing among neighbors who cannot afford individual systems.

And while lack of modern electricity paralyzes economic development, communications, and education—the new systems are sparking growth in all those areas.

The extra light at night allows students more time to stay current with classwork, and workers can pursue studies at night. Women might create an in-home handicrafts business, keep a shop open late, or cook catered food. Some solar users launch green businesses of their own by renting use of their renewable power for charging neighbors’ cell phones or allowing others the use of light and power to pursue their own opportunities.

Solar systems in Bangladesh have become one of the world’s fastest-growing renewable energy programs. They’ve also become a prime example of the kind of sustainable future envisioned by leaders at Rio +20—one where economic development and environmental responsibility grow in synergy to the benefit of both.

Brian Handwerk is a freelance writer based in Amherst, New Hampshire. 

Travel and event planners can go green by making sustainable choices, whether they work for the U.S. Army (pictured) or private organizations. Photo: U.S. Army Africa, Flickr

At Growing Green Jobs, we recently looked at some of the hottest eco-friendly positions. Now, we take a look at some surprising green jobs that might not immediately come to mind, but can also help you do well by doing good.

Green Financial Planners

Financial professionals are often associated with a different type of green job—one focused on the almighty dollar. But green ventures of all types, whether wind farms, LEED buildings, or organic farms, need financial backing to succeed.

Financial planners with a green hue can help concerned citizens invest their money in companies that share their own vision of a sustainable future—and work hard to achieve it. And supporting green causes need not put one’s own finances in the red. With many green technologies and services experiencing a surge, a good green financial planner can also help his or her clients to many happy returns.

“Blue” Fisheries

Industrial fisheries have taken a devastating toll on marine species around the globe, reducing populations of many ocean fish to mere fractions of their preindustrial levels. But 3 billion people still depend on the oceans as their primary source of protein. Sustainable fisheries are essential for the future health of both the ocean and the humans who depend on it. They’re also key to the economic well-being of those who depend on the ocean.

“Blue Economy” fishermen adhere to sustainable catch guidelines based on sound science, use responsible gear like low-impact lines rather than bottom-gouging trawlers, reduce bycatch of non-targeted species, market their product locally, and avoid using toxic materials. In an era when aquaculture contributes about half of the world’s seafood, many opportunities also exist for green fish farmers who can sustainably raise farmed species while minimizing environmental impacts like water pollution or the unsustainable consumption of fish-based pellet food.

Greener Steelworkers

The steel industry, a longtime pillar of America’s manufacturing might, is an energy-intensive business that predates the concept of green jobs. But United Steelworkers, one of the nation’s labor union giants, is a founding member of the BlueGreen Alliance and a backer of green employment.

Why? Because solar and wind manufacturing facilities, and other green initiatives, provide work for steelworkers who are creating the infrastructure of a new renewable energy system.

A typical wind turbine contains some 250 tons of steel. And steelworkers also manufacture many other products that can be put to green end uses, including the glass used in solar panels and energy-efficient light bulbs.

Green Event Planners

People are social animals and organizing the venues where they get together for weddings, fairs, meetings and conferences, or promotional events, is a multibillion dollar business. But events also leave large environmental footprints—and that’s where green planners come in.

Green planers begin work well before any event’s launch and attempt to make it as sustainable as possible. Planners might promote with recycled materials, provide convenient and fuel-efficient transportation, choose LEED-certified event venues, work with food providers to ensure sustainable offerings in appropriate amounts to reduce waste, use reusable place settings and decorations where possible, and recycle efficiently elsewhere.

This green job is definitely not your average 9 to 5, but offers the opportunity to make a visible difference by stylishly promoting green products and practices.

Green Travel Professionals

Even the most committed champions of a green lifestyle need the occasional vacation—and it seems that demand for sustainable travel alternatives is a growth industry among holidaymakers and business travelers as well.

An April 2012 survey by TripAdvisor, one of the world’s largest travel sites, shows soaring interest in eco-friendly travel. Seventy-one percent of respondents said they planned to make eco-friendly travel choices over the next year and 57 percent said they “often” do so today when picking hotels, transportation, or food sources during travel. Half of those surveyed said they’d pay more money to stay at an eco-friendly accommodation and three-fourths said they were committed to such choices regardless of the economic landscape.

All these figures suggest a rosy outlook for green travel planners, tour guides, and others who can tailor trips to their clients’ needs, whether an all-inclusive eco-wilderness lodge or one of Manhattan’s most environmentally friendly high-rise hotels.

Brian Handwerk is a freelance writer based in Amherst, New Hampshire.