Monday, July 28, 2014

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Island Energy job

Community Energy Associate

Posted By Nancy Carter on 6/20/2014 12:00:00 AM   |  Last Edited By Nancy Carter on 6/20/2014 3:09:07 PM
Summary: The Island Institute, a nonprofit community development organization located in Rockland, Maine, seeks a Community Energy Associate to provide technical, community outreach and administrative support to the Community Energy team. The CE team assists the Institute’s community partners in Maine's year-round island and remote coastal communities to better understand and confront their unique energy challenges. This is a one-year position renewable based on secured funding.
The Island Institute’s Community Energy program undertakes projects that address island and remote coastal communities' priorities related to their energy challenges and opportunities, including energy efficiency, the evaluation of ocean renewable energy and community-owned renewable energy projects, and formal and informal energy education.  This work is motivated by the economic and climate implications of island energy use and seeks to result in concrete, measurable impacts in our partner communities.
Working closely with other Community Energy program staff, the Community Energy Associate will implement projects that seek to:
  • Increase home and business owner access to energy efficiency retrofits and related incentives;
  • Provide technical analysis and translation to local stakeholders evaluating the potential for community-owned renewable energy projects;
  • Engage with coastal stakeholders on the potential impacts and benefits of offshore wind development in Maine;
  • Build local capacity to work on energy issues through intergenerational energy education programs.
  • For the complete job posting, including required and preferred qualifications, please visit: www.islandinstitute.org/careers.php

Monday, July 7, 2014

Your help needed

MIT's Climate CoLab contests approach the judging phase, to begin July 14th. My proposal is the only one so far within its category to complete all the judges' requirements and so likely to place highly, but no-one so far has voted for it.

There have been few votes cast thus far in any case, so this isn't necessarily any indication that no-one likes my proposal, but I'll need all the help I can get if I'm to win or even to place.

I'm asking readers of Sustainability Thought and Deed to register and log in to the MIT Climate CoLab overall contest, navigate to the specific Global Plan contest, read my proposal, and consider voting for it.

If you don't want to vote for it, that's fine. Tell me why, in a comment.

Within the Climate CoLab context, the more comments a proposal receives, the better.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Lower court decision with major ramifications

If this goes unchallenged, or perhaps even if it is, it sets a precedent, one that even the five conservative Supreme Court judges may think twice before undoing. Normally the use of cost benefit analysis, required for all executive branch actions since Reagan, and quite wide form of analysis since Bill Clinton issued Executive. Order No. 12,866, pushes public policy  towards moderate or conservative decisions, but in this case the courts interpretation leaves a major barn door open through which to drive many climate mitigation cases, including perhaps some international ones.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/30/3454764/court-blocks-arch-mine-coal-expansion/

Friday, June 20, 2014

Update on my Climate CoLab "Global Plan": Green Keynesianism

Regular readers of Sustainability Thought and Deed will already know of my "Green Keynesianism" proposal to the Climate CoLab competition at MIT.

Climate CoLab represents a new format for the distribution of ideas and for academic debate, a kind of crowd-sourcing. There's also a prize, and the promise of promotion for the winning ideas. You get comments and feedback as you work up your proposals, and this strengthens your work. Later in the process you'll get feedback from a team of "blue ribbon" judges.

All of this sounded pretty good to me, my idea of "fun", but I also entered the competition because my ideas to combat climate change don't really fit any particular traditional academic format. I could perhaps have published them in one of the more radical economics journals such as Ecological Economics, or have written a book, which would necessarily have been a polemic, and I may yet do one or both of these, but in this summer when Aimee and I are expecting a baby, and after a particularly busy academic year, with an even busier one looming, this was what I had time for. I wouldn't have had time for either of the two alternatives, at least not enough time to do them well.

Originally my proposal was filed under a section titled "Shifting perceptions", intended to be a receptacle and forum for proposals about how to influence and educate folk about climate change. Since my particular proposal was fairly global in reach, it sat somewhat uneasily in this section.

The competition organizers have come up with a whole new section to accommodate more global proposals, and invited me to shift my proposal over there, so I did so.

The new section is called "Global Plan"

Here's the lede:

"This contest invites Climate CoLab members to create an integrated vision for what actions the world as a whole can take.
Under the current state of the world’s governance system, there isn’t any one organization or even a defined group of organizations that could take such a vision and readily enact it. Instead, successful action will require work by many people across multiple organizations around the globe.
Articulating a vision for the world as a whole has great potential value, since it can demonstrate that there is a plausible path forward. And such a vision can serve as a roadmap for the many disparate organizations and actors whose efforts must be enlisted."

Here's my particular proposal. Please feel free to read and, if you feel it warranted, to support it.

These ideas grew out of a couple of articles I published on Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog. You can read the originals here.