Hundreds of leaders from business, policy and NGOs in the same room for two days, naturally some interesting things will emerge. Below is a quick sketch of trends and comments from the just wrapped Fortune Brainstorm Green that I thought of particular note:

• The media "needs to get off cars and on to buildings" – Autodesk executive chairman Carol Bartz on the fact that the issue of buildings sucking energy, material and water is still not getting the attention it deserves. The numbers back her up. Conversely, it was noted by others in the green building space like Hycrete and Serious Materials that after a two decade hiatus, venture funding has found its way back to building in the past 2 years.
• A new version of LEED is set for unveil at Greenbuild in Boston and will be a "quantum leap" – head of USGBC Rick Fedrizzi
• Seems to be growing unease, and even skepticism, that cap and trade is going to be as easy at many thought. 2011 was heard repeatedly as a possible timeframe for legislation. Will a nascent business consensus fray into a mess? Are the economics fully understood to push forward aggressively? Is the Hill ready? Anecdotally at least, the answer is still clearly in the balance. One interesting alternative presented was Cap and Dividend.
• Like building, energy efficiency is still struggling to get more than a lot of lip service. Is recession the catalyst for cracking that nut? It was mentioned as a possibility.
• Hybrids and small cars are the fastest growing segment of US automotive market, according to Beth Lowery of GM. "The price of fuel is driving behavior," she said.
• "Living building" that taps into biomimicry is going mainstream. HOK – the giant architecture and design firm is starting to position itself as "bio-inspired", according to Janine Benyus, the founder of the Biomimicry Guild. Benyus' group is also looking to launch Asknature.org – a cool idea that allows anyone to query a database with questions about how nature addresses specific issues.
• Coke's environmental guru Jeff Seabright said look for something soon about consumer-facing information about "water used" in the company's products. It may not be on-package information, but something is coming. This would be welcome, since embedded water in consumer products is still very opaque to the consumer (for example, according to Dow Chemicals' Scott Noesen, it takes 2,000 liters of water to make a McDonald's hamburger if you do the whole-cost analysis.) There is nutritional information, now carbon labeling information has appeared, and water is the logical next step. Let's hope it happens.
• Vinod Khosla was the most provocative in my opinion during a 1:1 with Fortune's Adam Lashinsky. Highlights include:
  • Next generation batteries are not on a rapidly declining cost curve and require a quantum jump with a high probability of failure
  • The "Prius is more greenwash than green"
  • Technology for clean energy will only succeed if it passes the Chindia price test. If it's affordable in China and India then it has a shot.
  • Carbon emissions from all-electric cars are 3x more than that of cars powered by cellulosic ethanol.
• The highest correlation in the movement of solar stocks is the price of oil (not the price of natural gas as would be expected) – David Edwards, analyst at Morgan Stanley
• Both Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant and Khosla cited the same statistics placing biofuel as the fourth leading cause for the spike in global grain prices. The top three – rise in oil prices, drought in Australia and change in eating habits in developing countries like China (to more meat). I found one paper on Khosla's site about Fuel vs. Food, but it didn't appear to include the above list. Anyone know where it comes from?
• When Fortune's Marc Gunther asked a panel of Xerox, GM, SC Johnson and Dupont executives what grade corporate America should get in addressing environmental challenges (10 being the best grade), all of them said "1″, with the exception of GM's Lowery, who gave a "2″ because of innovation happening around new technologies. If you want to actually score a company, you can thanks to the CEO of Stonyfield Farm Gary Hirshberg, who has created an online corporate scorecard at Climatecounts.org

The Clean Technology and Sustainable Industries Organization (CTSI) organized a "DC Policy Tour for Clean Technology" this month, taking 50 cleantech industry players (representing cleaner coal, solar, wind, nuclear, hydrogen, demand response, water, biomass and fuel cells, plus investors) on a Congressional walk-about. I spoke with Patti Glaza, executive director and CEO, to get her take on the day and the outcomes. After a total of 45 meetings with elected officials from more than 20 states, Ms. Glaza reported that renewable energy tax credit extensions will happen, but only for one year (longer term extensions will most likely come in the next administration) and that climate change legislation will be considered in June, although again it would be surprising to see anything being signed into law prior to the next administration. She also said that both the House and Senate have requested a significant increase in the Dept. of Energy (DOE) budget from what was in the department's original request, and that more funding should be available than last year. Ms. Glaza added, however, that it was unlikely that the Advance Research Projects Energy (ARPA-E) program that was approved in the America Competes Act last year will get off the ground.  More details from the day can be gleaned from the Q&A below, including tips from Ms. Glaza for how companies, even start-ups, can work with their elected officials to make a bigger difference at the Federal level. 

Q: Any humorous moments from the tour?

A: We learned to never let a tour member tell a Republican official that we should pay for the renewable energy tax extensions with funding for the Iraq war.

Q: Who did you visit and get traction with?

A: The primary focus of the meetings was with members of the Appropriations and Ways & Means Committees as Congress is currently finalizing agency budgets and funding programs slated for this fiscal year. We also targeted the Science & Technology, Small Business, Energy Independence & Global Warming, and Energy & Commerce committees and subcommittees, in addition to several executive-level meetings at the DOE. The highlight was Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND) who leads the Democratic Policy Committee and sits on key committees including Appropriations; Commerce, Science & Transportation, and Committee on Energy & Natural Resources. Sen. Dorgan and his staff took a significant amount of time with our group and showed real interest and knowledge of the challenges the sector faces.    There are a lot of champions on the Hill and we need help in reaching out to all of them. Congressmen that took the time to meet with the tour directly included: Tom Udall, Vito Fossella, Dale Kildee, Phil English, Jay Inslee, and Dorgan. Additional offices showing high-level support included: Cantwell, Clinton, McNerney, Barrow, Capuano, and Candace Miller. 

Q: It seems there is a scarcity of coordinated government relations work being done on the part of the cleantech industry. Is that an accurate read on the situation?

A: My initial assessment is that as an industry or sector, clean technology has not had strong representation in Washington DC. Inslee made the comment that he has been waiting for a group like CTSI and is glad we have started our efforts. That being said, there is strong government relations work being done for specific clean technology segments, solar, wind, and biofuels being examples. The role CTSI is trying to fill is to advocate for policies and programs that address the complexity and interrelated issues of energy, water, and the environment. Renewable energy needs smart grid needs cleaner base load generation needs distributed generation support needs water management/reduction, etc.

It was obvious from our meetings that the Hill is extremely receptive to a sector they see as providing new jobs, energy security/independence, and increasing the US global competitiveness. Regardless of the group organizing, a broad technology platform is essential. Industry has to be seen as working together on solving the bigger issues (growing energy demand, climate change, etc.) and not just advocating for specific industry segments in isolation.    

Q: How can companies make a difference on the national level?

A: I see three immediate ways that organizations can make a difference:

- Companies need to take the time to educate their local representatives on their companies, technologies, and how they are working to solve the larger issues.

- Executives need to participate in Washington DC based meetings to emphasize the important role policy and regulation play in developing the clean technology sector. Nothing grabs attention like a company telling their representative that they expect to start laying off workers in June/July because the renewable tax credits haven't been extended.

- Overall, companies need to recognize that policy isn't just for the big players. Policy and regulations have and will have a significant impact on the rate of development and adoption of clean technologies, and growing technology companies need to be at the table when those policies and regulations are being created. Yes, resources are limited. Yes, policy is complicated and difficult to understand. Thus the role of policy and trade organizations.

Cleantech events abound these days, but the organizers of COPENMIND are taking a novel approach – creating a giant shopping mall for the most cutting edge cleantech ideas coming out of academia. Besides having a clever name, COPENMIND will hopefully drive more rapid technology transfer from leading research institutes to the market. In September, the event in Copenhagen will bring together 200 top-notch universities from around the world to provide potential business partners with an inside look at what's next in cleantech, according to event founder Steffen Moldow. Joining the scientists will be thousands of corporations, as well as investors and leading public figures. It's no secret that universities are poor marketers, so providing a venue that allows them to get their IP in front of the people who might fund commercialization is key to a more rapid development of the cleantech sector. Pre-event match-making will kick off on May 1 through COPENMIND's website.  

Besides technology transfer, the event will also focus on sponsored research and recruitment. "The event will help solve the issues that are discussed at Davos," Moldow told me, referring to the World Economic Forum. Cleantech areas of focus include: climate change & air pollution, energy, water, waste & recycling and agriculture & land.    

The event will also provide a nice prelude to COP15, the highest body of the UN Climate Change Convention, which is set to take place in Copenhagen in 2009 and will set global climate change direction from 2012.

Software as a service (SaaS) has already been declared by Forbes as a recession-averse part of the tech sector, citing the fact that it weathered an earlier downturn in 2000-2002. Cleantech barely existed as a category in 2002, so we don't have historical performance to go on. Would consumers and businesses continue to spend on green? Would investment remain hot? Would many of the positive environmental gains made in the past several years stall or even reverse?

Those are some of the questions posed informally to companies that I work with. The conclusion? Cleantech, like nearly every other sector, would take a hit, particularly the companies still in need of funding, but it would also find distinct opportunities – in particular efficiency plays (some are already calling 2008 the year of energy efficiency given that energy costs are at record-breaking highs and that the most significant energy-efficiency legislation in three decades was recently enacted.

If we think back to the dot-com shakeout, while the losses were staggering for many, the collapse separated the wheat from the chaff. Current blue-chips like Amazon, Ebay and Expedia all proved that they were more than just clever ideas and marketing gimmicks and used a tough business environment to propel themselves. If a recession hits, it is likely to have a similar outcome for cleantech, a market ripe for a shakeout.  Who will be the winners and the losers? Here are some comments to consider:

From David Rosenberg, CEO of Hycrete, whose product makes concrete waterproof in an environmentally-friendly, cost-saving way:

"The answer is yes and no. All of construction is effected by a recession and we are already starting to see some projects getting delayed and cancelled and financing getting tighter. On the positive side, a slow down often allows greater time to investigate and improve construction practices – like green.  On the negative side, where budgets are slimmer and profits are less, greater upfront costs associated with green construction get harder to justify – of course this is not a Hycrete problem as we are better, faster, and less expensive.".

From Matt Heinz, senior director of marketing at Verdiem, a developer of power management software for PC networks: 

"The polar ice caps don't care too much about recessions. Less flippantly, I think in the not-too-distant future, sustainability will be a fundamental, 'table stakes' part of doing business for global enterprises. Reducing the impact companies have on the world around them will soon become non-negotiable, and a requirement for doing business with customers (commercial and consumer) that expect them to act responsibly.

"Today, that isn't the case – at least not yet. While several businesses have blazed a trail with significant corporate responsibility and sustainability initiatives, not enough of those efforts have paid off – either in increased sales or decreased operational costs. Unless such initiatives demonstrate a consistent ability to provide value to the organization, they'll be close to the chopping block in leaner times.

"That said, technologies are emerging that allow companies to 'go green' and save green at the same time. And if this kind of savings is both real and verifiable, it's the kind of thing that will get prioritized higher in lean times."

From CEO Michael Ford of Choose Renewables, a source for consumer information and products on renewable energy content and commerce: 

"It's tough to make a broad projection regarding cleantech because there are so many facets. In general I think the entire space will perform better than most other segments – but I doubt it's entirely recession proof.  I think energy efficiency / fuel efficiency will actually see a significant bump from recessionary times. And maybe even the biofuels movement, though I personally think the overall philosophy around ethanol in particular is questionable. However, I think some of the more expensive pure play renewables (solar, small scale wind, fuels cells, hydrogen, etc...) will suffer a bit – but still grow. I think big wind is going to keep going no matter what – unless Congress continues to screw up with the PTC."

Michael Meehan, CEO of Carbonetworks, software platform that helps companies create effective carbon emissions strategies: 

"Cleantech as a whole will definitely feel the crunch, but it's a two-sided coin – how clients' requirements will likely change, and what will happen to vendors as a result.

"The market is still immature and spans a lot of industries. 'Niche-fication' (as Will put it in his blog) is only starting to occur. Especially in technology markets, niches can provide some insurance against recessive markets because the need for the service/technology is clearly defined and the incumbents are often well established. Cleantech is still a bit nebulous and a recession will have a direct effect on many areas of the cleantech spectrum: funding sources for startups, increased cost of outsourced services (e.g., int'l support, sales), and decreased demand for point products. That's one side of the coin: increased competition, consolidation, and likely a more protectionist industry as the US/CAN dollar weakens against the Euro, inhibiting growth in an emerging market.

"The other side of the coin (the clients) will hasten this process as their expectations and requirements change out of necessity. Faced with increased demands on potentially shrinking budgets, companies will be forced to place more stringent diligence on technology investments, and cleantech is no exception. But there's a somewhat unique opportunity for cleantech in this: the key here for vendors is to increase the focus on cost savings, process efficiencies, or uncovering opportunities that will help lower operational costs for these companies. That's where the defining line will be for successful cleantech vendors and those that simply react to the market as it tightens up. Unlike other supply/demand markets such as manufacturing or distribution, cleantech has an edge because it can become strategic by helping companies be more competitive through improving their bottom line. This of course is our strategy at Carbonetworks, but it is also true of Verdiem, GreatPoint Energy, IT virtualization technologies, and other innovators who help companies do more with less and diversify. That's the other side of the coin: rather than fighting over decreasing market share, successful cleantech companies will instead seek to increase the clients' competitive position through cost reductions and diversification. Recession may be the impetus for this cleantech market shift, but it will be the clients under pressure that will drive it to consolidation. Whether that's good or bad depends on where you sit, but cleantech is definitely not immune to market recession."

It's an unenviable position to have to prioritize the world's problems and solutions. First, there are too many. Second, there is an inter-relatedness to all of the problems that makes it difficult to pinpoint a chief culprit. Increasingly, however, it is clear that one issue trumps them all: energy. Plenty of other smart people have explained this, so I will just quote one – Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, who said "It is impossible to imagine bringing the lower half of the economic ladder of human civilization – about three billion people – up to a modern lifestyle without abundant, lowcost, clean energy". He made a strong case that energy touches everything – disease, water, poverty, terrorism, malnutrition, etc. As you might guess, I'm no Bjorn Lomborn booster. From where I sit he's advocating buying a dinghy to save those stranded on a desert isle when we need to marshal resources for an Armada to save the island's inhabitants... and everyone else. 

 

At any rate, it is encouraging to see a shift in public, business and government urgency that recognizes the energy calculus, some for energy security reasons, others for economic prosperity reasons and still others for climate change reasons. Support, happily, is getting stronger every day. Unhappily, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes, even with drastic action, we are still in big trouble.

 

Yet curiously, from a non-descript building on Lake Union here in Seattle, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – the Fort

Knox of the NGO world with funds north of $30 billion and Warren Buffett's still to come – is so far nearly quiet on the issue of energy. And dare I say that Mr. Gates, a technology revolutionary himself, seems nonplussed that he is missing a revolution that badly needs him.

 

It almost goes without saying that the Foundation is doing incredible work to alleviate suffering of the world's poor. That work must continue and is testament to the size of Bill Gates’ heart and his commitment to activism and witness. But there are two sides to the coin. He is addressing the symptomatic and saving millions of lives, but oddly there is still nothing on the systemic issues surrounding energy that threaten billions. Even odder since technology – Mr. Gates' playground – has a key role to play in reducing poverty through the production of clean, distributed energy. 

 

Gates has clearly thought about energy. He has made two public pronouncements that I could find. One a 2006 interview with Newsweek, in which he stated that he was “already reading some books on energy and the environment… But I will read a lot more two years from now and think whether there's something the foundation should do in those areas,” he said. “The angle I'll have when I'll look at most things is, What about the 4 billion poorest people? What about energy and environmental issues for them?”

 

In November 2007, he added for Rolling Stone: "Between now and 2100, how many people in Africa are going to die of malaria? Just do the numbers. Helping them avoid an eleven-inch rise in the water in 2100, we could do it and we should do it, we will do it. But in terms of relative priorities, if you want to help the poor, this is not the issue to be focused on."  For a genius who started one of the most successful companies in human history, Gates appears to be unwilling to fully accept that energy affects the global commons, not discriminating based on income. While he's reading up on the issues, China put 90,000 megawatts of coal-fired power online in 2006 alone (about the equivalent of two Californias in capacity). All dirty coal, some of which finds its way to our lungs here in the Pacific Northwest. In Beijing last week for the Cleantech Forum, the Chinese government's cleantech guy, Shi Dinghuan, said that even by 2050, coal would still account for 50% of China's power generation (it's 70% now).  

So far, the Foundation appears to be hedging on energy/climate change. In August, it made its first investment, with a 100 million Euro commitment to Peony Capital Ltd., a Beijing-based company that is using investment in technology to lower GHG emissions through the UN CDM process. But we are all fooling ourselves if we think the market will take care of introducing the technologies to deal with GHG quickly enough to make a dent. Nor is the slow churn of policy going to get us there fast enough. Where Mr. Gates could make a difference, for example, is using his financial leverage to advocate for the creation of a public/private fund that works to provide financing for clean technologies that are already out there but not being implemented because of cost. Coal plants in China are a great example. They don't spend the money on cleaner technology, but if a powerful enough fund was created to drive the cost of the gasification/sequestration technology down and provide favorable financing (or even give it away), things could be greatly accelerated.  

 

It is certainly just a coincidence that the Gates Foundation is moving its offices from the lakeside to higher ground over the next two years. But maybe not. Maybe they are preparing to add their important voices to the campaign against dirty energy – from dry ground as the world's waters continue their eleven foot rise. One only hopes.

In the same way the Northwest has imagined and innovated its way to success with endeavors now synonymous with the region – be it coffee, software, outdoor gear, aerospace or microchips – our region can help write the operating instructions for what might be the most important opportunity for the next two generations – cleantech.   The time is now, not to walk but to fly. The land grab has started as different regions – inside the US and out – move to stake their claim as the leaders of the cleantech revolution. The companies and people of the Northwest are uniquely positioned to be among the leaders. The intellectual capital is here. The political will is here. The consumer culture and public sentiment needed to support a cleantech economy are also here.  Tech heavyweights like the San Francisco Bay Area are already way ahead, investing heavily in starting clean technology companies and churning out patents from their universities.   Yet here in the Northwest, local venture-capital money is still trickling into cleantech - Chrysalix and Yaletown in BC are the notable exceptions. Entrepreneurial enthusiasm has been relatively muted. Where is the Bill Gates, the Jeff Bezos, the Paul Allen, the Howard Schultz of cleantech? Cleantech is ripe for great, local visionaries. It is also ripe for another key component of success: a clearly identifiable brand. What does the Northwest stand for? Where does it have a competitive advantage in cleantech that is sustainable over the long haul? What can we get excited about as a community and rally around? The jury is still out, but here is an attempt to crystallize the focus of our region and my candidates for where the Northwest has a real chance to stake a claim, not as “the” world leader, but as “a” legitimate leader with the proof to back it up: The Frontrunners

• Biofuels – Imperium Renewables gets the attention, but there is much more happening. Boeing working on aviation biofuel. Weyerhaeuser exploring cellulosic ethanol. A host of start-ups looking at algae, mold and enzymes. The Northwest Biofuels Association, Pacific Regional Biomass Energy Partnership. A solid base of expertise has formed in the Northwest, including at universities and national labs. And we also excel in the ability to design and build large bio-refineries.  
• The Other Hydro – Wave and tidal could be the “next wind” and we are blessed with the right coastline and ripping tides. Just ask Oregon Iron Works, as they churn out prototypes of several different wave energy prototypes. When I recently saw the eight-story AquaBuOY (almost all of which is underwater) designed by my client Finavera Renewables, it finally struck me that this is no joke.
• Software – Whether PC power management, carbon emissions tracking, vehicle to grid, or remote electricity consumption monitoring, its already happening in the Northwest and the potential for growth here is great given that software is in our DNA. Microsoft even appears to be prepping for a big push in greening its products.
• Cleantech as a Service – The service sector has always been a strength in the Northwest, whether its building, engineering or environmental consulting. Is there an Accenture of cleantech out there waiting to happen? Not yet, but its possible.   

The Maybes

• Consumer Cleantech – We have some of the best consumer brands in the world, and there is no reason to believe that we cannot create more in cleantech, whether it’s a consumer-facing biofuels brand (SeQuential or Propel), a family-friendly home energy saving software or a venture capital firm like Maveron that takes its consumer knowledge and puts it to work in the cleantech space. But top talent is being drawn to the Bay, so we need to incubate locally and aggressively.  
• Smart Grid – The Northwest appeared to have an edge here several years ago, with relatively progressive utilities and Itron dominating the metering market, but does it anymore? Not so sure. Other regions have caught up and probably passed us.  
• Renewable Energy Gateway to China – Senator Maria Cantwell certainly would like to see that happen, and efforts are underway to organize a bilateral forum in Seattle of top business leaders to advise the US-China inter-government Strategic Economic Dialogue. The Northwest also exports a lot of engineering knowledge, environmental consulting, green building and design to
  China.
• Power Storage – Between fuel cells in British Columbia and a national lab in Idaho that knows power storage, there is some critical mass here, but can we recover from the disappointment of Ballard?

This past spring Tristan Fischer, then chief executive officer of Camco International Ltd., a global firm that helps companies identify and develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, scoured China's countryside for a new breed of opportunity. Rather than looking for cheap shoes to stock the shelves of big-box retailers, he was searching for carbon-belching smokestacks in need of clean technology to offset carbon emissions and make them available for market trading. Though China has benefited from more than 25 years of rapid economic growth, that progress has also created an environmental nightmare of global proportions, with worse to come in the next 20 years. The country, which gets nearly 70 percent of its energy from burning dirty coal, is on track to surpass the United States as the world's top GHG emitter as early as the end of this year—more than a decade earlier than previously predicted—according to  International Energy Agency Chief Economist Fatih Birol. In addition to GHG emissions, China has many other environmental problems, including water shortages and poor air quality that threaten public health and industrial output. With finite supplies of carbon-based energy and growing global demand, China will have to find other—and cleaner—sources of energy.

China's large and growing appetite for clean technology will create one of the biggest market opportunities in the next few decades, providing the potential for enormous wealth creation by cleaning up the ecological mess that has come from its miraculous, but dirty growth. Many climate change experts are betting that the solution to the world's environmental problems resides in the technological innovation coming out of Silicon Valley and other high-tech clusters in the United States and Europe. But to fully benefit from such technology, China will have to change its policies and consumer attitudes quickly to speed its adoption of the technology—or face significant economic, social, and public health ramifications. "China says it will obtain 15 percent of its [primary] energy from renewables by 2020," says Mike Eckhart, president of the American Council of Renewable Energy, referring to the goal China first announced in November 2005. "But China has got it backward. If it's not at 85 percent renewable, we're in big trouble." Though China is unlikely to change its renewable energy targets so radically, the central government is highly motivated to address China's chronic energy shortage and severe environmental pollution. Across the board, Beijing is enacting policies that will require huge investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, smart building, clean water, and cleaner coal. These initiatives include:

Read more at the China Business Review

(This is an article I wrote for Yes! magazine a couple of years ago. I am currently updating it for the China Business Review). 

After an initial rush of excitement over writing a piece about China for YES!, a slow creep of dread and unease replaced the thrill. With global oil prices spiking because of China's rapacious growth in oil consumption and the country poised to replace the United States in the dubious role of world leader in carbon dioxide emissions, could I honestly write an article portraying as positive what is happening with China and fossil fuels?

My doubts were not erased, but amplified, after some initial phone calls to environmental leaders in China were met with long pauses when I asked for suggestions on positive stories.

But I was not deterred. China is important to me. I take what is happening there to heart. In many ways it is my home, and I am protective of it. I have spent nearly half of my life there, as a foreign correspondent and businessman from 1986 to 2002. During that time, I experienced what I consider to be one of the most dramatic periods of transformation in world history from the brief ecstasy of free expression in the late 1980s and the might of totalitarianism in snuffing it out, to a shift toward capital markets and the massive spiritual, economic, and social changes that came with that shift, including the beginnings of civil society. (When the United States industrialized, it had fewer than 80 million people, and it took around 40 years to do it. China has nearly 20 times that number of people, and it is industrializing at hyper-drive speed, manufacturing not only for itself but for the rest of the world.)

I believe it is essential that all of us not only understand what is going on in China, but that we become active agents for making it better. Unless we do something urgent, my two-year-old son will enter adulthood in a world neither he nor I want to contemplate.

When I first arrived in China, Beijing was one big bicycle lane, as was the rest of China. There were no private cars no one had the money and even if they had, private car ownership was prohibited by the government. The few cabs on the road catered to the few foreigners who paid in the equivalent of U.S. dollars.

Read more at Yes! magazine