There’s good news for the future of green-collar employment, but it comes with a caveat: maximizing job growth in green industries will require the right public policy support. That means law-makers need to approve measures such as a renewable portfolio standard, incentives for renewable energy, public education programs and adequate funding for research and development.

If such measures are put in place, the U.S. could see as many as one out of every four workers employed by a renewable-energy or energy-efficiency industry by 2030, according to a new report from the American Solar Energy Society (ASES). That’s promising for both U.S. employees and for anyone concerned about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels. But it will happen only, as the ASES report says, under “an aggressive deployment forecast scenario.”

That means we, as citizens and consumers, are going to have to apply strong and steady pressure on legislators — local, state and national — to do the right thing. And that, we all know, isn’t easy.

Still, if — as the saying goes — money walks, green-collar types might see Beltway support grow as green industries expand their economic muscle, which means more dollars for lobbying and campaign financing. And, in that regard, the future looks bright.

In the U.S., renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industries are already generating 8.5 million jobs and nearly $970 billion in annual revenues, according to the ASES report. “To put this in perspective,” the report states, “(t)otal sales for Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil and General Motors in 2006 were $905 billion.”

While companies on the energy-efficiency side — things like better windows, efficient appliances and insulation — are making more of the money right now, the renewables side is growing more rapidly.

The ASES predicts the hottest, fastest-growing industries will involve solar power, wind energy, ethanol and fuel-cell technologies. With the right level of public support, it says, we could see up to 40 million people employed — as everything from accountants and biochemists to engineers, mechanics and truck drivers — in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency sectors by 2030, with annual green-industry revenues of $4.5 trillion.

Getting there, though, will require much more than a business-as-usual approach, the ASES report warns.

“This scenario requires appropriate, aggressive, sustained public policies at the federal and state level during next two decades,” it states. Getting decision-makers to come on board might take oil shortages, fossil-fuel price increases, growing security concerns or a greater awareness of the impact of climate change. The fear of suffering economically at a global level might also be a motivator.

“If we fail to invest in (renewable energy and energy efficiency), the United States runs the risk of losing ground to international … programs and industries,” the report concludes. “For the United States to be competitive in a carbon-constrained world, the (renewable energy and energy efficiency) industry will be a critical economic driver.”

Can better energy efficiency help us reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and curb our greenhouse gas emissions? Maybe not as much as some hope.

While some people tout better and more energy-efficient technology as one solution to our current fuel and climate challenges, their expectations might be overblown. A new study from the UK Energy Research Centre, for example, finds that improved efficiency sometimes creates a tendency to use more energy, or to engage in other activities that counteract the efficiency gains. It’s called the “rebound effect,” and it can work either directly or indirectly to reduce expected energy savings from improved efficiency.

Rebounds occur, for example, when someone who buys a more fuel-efficient car decides to take the occasional longer day trip because, “Hey, I’m not spending as much on gas anymore.” They can also happen when someone who’s improved his home insulation uses the money saved on heating and cooling to pay for a plane trip to Orlando.

Then there’s “backfire,” also known, somewhat bizarrely, as the Khazzoon-Brookes postulate. That’s the even worse effect that can occur when a new energy-efficient technology actually causes overall energy use to increase. It happened, for instance, after the steam engine came onto the scene. Nineteenth-Century Scotland saw its total coal consumption increase tenfold thanks to the steam engine, which made it possible to mine coal at a lower cost, which made it cheaper to produce iron, when then lowered the cost of steam engines and drove the development of the railway industry.

While backfires are uncommon, rebounds are not. A recent report from the InterAcademy Council noted that technology improvements over the past 20 years have helped drive a small decline in the world’s energy intensity — which compares energy consumption to economic output — but not in its overall energy consumption. And the United National Environmental Programme’s latest “Global Environmental Outlook” (GEO-4) warns that, while technology can help defend against environmental stresses, it’s sometimes important to look beyond the “technology-centred development paradigm.”

The UK rebound report concludes we could be overestimating our savings from improved effiency by anywhere from 10 to 50-plus percent. It adds that policy-makers need to start taking rebounds into effect now if they want to enact energy- and carbon-reducing measures that actually work.

The demand for solar energy is expanding rapidly, but one of the industry’s obstacles to even faster growth has always been the difficulty of getting enough silicon to make photovoltaic cells for solar panels.

This week, though, IBM announced a new potential source for much-needed silicon: waste silicon wafers used to make semiconductor chips for computers, mobile phones and other electronic devices. By erasing the layers of intellectual property that previously prevented those chips from being sold for other uses, IBM can now sell its scrap silicon wafers directly to companies that manufacture solar panels.

IBM and other companies in the industry use silicon wafers to imprint the patterns on semiconductor chips. Once scrapped, these product silicon wafers have typically been crushed and sent to landfills, or melted down for resale. That’s because the proprietary information encoded on the wafers has prevented them from being resold.

Using a process developed by engineer Eric White, though, IBM has found a way to erase the intellectual property from wafers so they can be reused or resold. IBM has introduced the process to turn old product wafers into monitor wafers to help manage the chip-manufacturing process. Wafers of either kind that reach the end of their lives can now be marketed to solar cell makers rather than being trashed.

IBM says up to 3.3 percent of the new silicon wafers made in the industry each day are currently scrapped. While that might not sound like much, when you consider that, worldwide, semiconductor manufacturers create 250,000 new wafers per day, the numbers start adding up. Using stats from the Semiconductor Industry Association, IBM estimates that could mean annual waste of up to three million silicon wafers — enough, according to IBM, to cover an area of 22.5 acres, or to provide solar power to 6,000 homes.

IBM says the new reclamation process helped it save more than a half-million dollars at its Burlingont, Vermont, facility last year; it expects to save nearly $1.5 million this year. It says it’s also getting ready to use the process at its plant in East Fishkill, New York, and will provide working details to others in the semiconductor-making industry.

ReneSola, one of China’s fastest-growing solar energy companies, has already begun to use the reclaimed silicon wafers to make its solar panels. And the IBM process recently won the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable’s "2007 Most Valuable Pollution Prevention Award."

Pretty big props for something that starts out so small.

We tend to associate the problem of chronic poverty in many parts of the world with a lack of basic resources like food and water. But another essential resource — energy — also plays a key role.

"Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future," a report released by the InterAcademy Council (a global association of national science academies) this week, points out that access to basic energy services can help halve extreme poverty, reduce hunger, improve access to potable drinking water and enable basic health and education services that can help poor people become self-sustainable.

"In brief, substantial inequalities in access to energy services now exist, not only between countries but between populations within the same country and even between households within the same town or village," the report stated. "In many developing countries, a small elite uses energy in much the same way as in the industrialized world, while most of the rest of the population relies on traditional, often poor-quality and highly polluting forms of energy."

Basic energy services as a solution to poverty makes sense when you consider the numbers: 1.6 billion of the world’s 6.6 billion people — almost one out of every four people — live without access to electricity. And a total of 2.4 billion — about 36 percent of the world’s population — relies on fuels like dung, charcoal, firewood and crop waste to cook their daily meals.

Compared to the benefits that would come from providing basic energy to the world’s poor, the overall global energy investment wouldn’t be overwhelming, according to the InterAcademy Council.

"Extending basic energy services to the billions of people who now lack access to electricity and clean cooking fuels, for example, could be accomplished in ways that would have only minimal impact on current levels of petroleum consumption and carbon dioxide emissions," the council’s report said. "Indeed, closer examination of the relationship between energy consumption and human well-being suggests that a more equitable distribution of access to energy services is entirely compatible with accelerated progress toward addressing energy-security and climate-change risks."

It sounds like a daunting task, but the InterAcademy Council report expressed hope that it could be done … if governments, businesses, NGOs, researchers and the media can all come onto the same page and work together to attack the problem.

"Aggressive changes in policy are… needed to accelerate the deployment of superior technologies," the report stated. "With a combination of such policies at the local, national and international level, it should be possible — both technically and economically — to elevate the living conditions of most of humanity, while simultaneously addressing the risks posed by climate change and other forms of energy-related environmental degradation and reducing the geopolitical tensions and economic vulnerabilities generated by existing patterns of dependence on predominantly fossil-fuel resources."

The biggest challenge, it seems, will be to make the possible probable.

If you haven’t heard yet, peak oil is here: the Energy Watch Group released an analysis this week indicating that global oil production peaked last year and is now likely to start dropping by several percent annually.

Ironically, on the same day, the InterAcademy Council announced a new report titled, “Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.” While that report didn’t include the peak oil news, it did emphasize that the world needs to start moving now to ensure both a dependable energy future and a climate that doesn’t tip dangerously into overdrive.

And here’s where the conundrum comes in: coal, the InterAcademy Council report acknowledged, is the most abundant fossil fuel we’ve got … but also the most potentially damaging. Coal-fired power plants, which are springing up in growing numbers around the globe, could help provide the energy safety net we need if the peak-oil analysis is true. But the emissions from coal-burning plants would only speed up today’s rising greenhouse gas levels.

So what’s the solution? Do we throw everything we’ve got at developing safe and cost-effective ways to capture and store the carbon from coal plants? Or do we “Just say no” to coal and invest like mad in renewables research and development? We need an answer in the near future apparently, but which will it be?

SolarCooking.org is hardly an eye-catching Website, but it’s one that I’ve found myself returning to again and again over the years just because it’s so full of interesting, informative, eye-opening and, yes, even inspirational information. And judging by the home-page counter, which has tallied 2,280,425 visitors since the site went online in 1996, I’m not the only one who feels that way about it.

As described by SolarCooking.org and its sponsor, SolarCookers.org (a much more visually appealing site, by the way), solar cooking is the "simplest, safest, most convenient way to cook food without consuming fuels or heating up the kitchen." But while it might be a convenience for those of us in the developed world, solar cooking is, as the site says, a blessing to millions of people around the world who don’t have the luxury of fresh, clean running water, a safe gas- or electric-powered stove, or money to throw away for precious cooking fuels.

That’s what makes SolarCooking.org and SolarCookers.org such rewarding resources: here you’ll find more information than you could possibly imagine about the history of solar cooking, how to make a solar cooker (with some instructions available not only in English but in languages like Arabic, Portuguese, Persian, Urdu, French, Spanish, Vietnamese, Catalan, Kikongo and Tshiluba), solar cookbooks, a solar cooking wiki, an RSS news feed, a PowerPoint presentation, and, well, pretty much all things related to how to cook food or purify water using the power of the sun.

All of this knowledge comes courtesy of Solar Cookers International (SCI), a 10-year-old non-profit based in California. Since its start, SCI has worked to help thousands of people in refugee camps in places like Chad, Ethiopia and Kenya build simple, often portable, solar cookers that help their lives in many ways. It’s a beautiful concept that not only eliminates the ecological damage caused by traditional wood or dung cooking fuels (which contribute to deforestation, pollution and climate change), but helps free some of the world’s most disadvantaged people from the time, costs and risks often associated with the simple act of acquiring fuel to cook a meal.

Among the benefits of solar cooking: it’s a free power source for families who might otherwise spend 25 percent or more of their income on cooking fuel; it’s a method that doesn’t burn food, so people can spend their time doing other tasks rather than just watching a cooking pot; it can sanitize dishes and kill insects in grains; and it can pasteurize milk and water, which is a huge plus in the developing world, where waterborne diseases are blamed for 80 percent of illnesses and deaths. If all that sounds too good to be true, SolarCooking.org and SolarCookers.org make it abundantly clear that’s not the case.

Also on GO:

Solar Ovens Provide Alternative to Cooking with Wood in Rural China

Image source: SolarCookers.org