Next Generation Protocol: Innovating a Resilient Future

Conventional practices do not account for product life beyond end-of-sale – these practices are not sustainable. We have developed an end-of-life protocol that includes a metric that we call the Recovery Rating. The objectives of this Next Generation Protocol, beyond supporting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, are to encourage the production of goods designed for recovery and to promote the collaboration between consumers, the public, and the private sector to recover goods at their end-of-life. The Recovery Rating that we propose evaluates and quantifies recovery potential of products. The Recovery Rating, which is normed against embodied energy from the Cambridge Engineering Selector by Granta Design, accounts for different tiers of recovery: product, component, and material, and different recovery methods at each tier and material family. We will present the results of our Next Generation Protocol using three case studies: 1) disposal, single use PET bottle, 2) Nalgene® reusable bottle, and 3) vacuum insulated, reusable metal bottle. The findings indicate the Next Generation Protocol produces a viable Recovery Rating for the material tier. We will also present survey data on potential user reactions to symbolic, numerical, and graphical versions of the Recovery Rating. The Recovery Ratings for the product and component tiers require considerations that have yet to be accounted for, such as number of uses and production/processing methods, which we present for future recommendations

The distribution of environmental pressures from global dietary shift

The production and consumption of food is one of the main drivers of environmental change globally. Meanwhile, many populations remain malnourished due to insufficient or unhealthy diets. Increasingly, dietary shifts are proposed as a means to address both environmental and health concerns. We have a limited understanding of how dietary shifts could alter where food is produced and consumed and how these changes would affect the distribution of environmental pressures both globally and across different groups of people. Here we combine new food flow data linking producing to consuming country with environmental pressures to estimate how a global shift to each of four diets (Indian, EAT-Lancet, Mediterranean, and mean Food Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs)) could affect environmental pressures at the global, country income group, and country level. Globally, cumulative pressures decrease under the Indian, EAT-Lancet, and Mediterranean scenarios and increase under FBDGs. On average, low income countries increase their cumulative consumption and production pressures while high income countries decrease their consumption pressures, and typically decrease their production pressures. Increases in low income countries are likely due to the nutritional inadequacy of current diets and the corresponding increases in consumption quantities with a shift to our diet scenarios. Despite these increases, we believe that three out four of our simulated dietary shifts can be seen as a net benefit by decreasing global pressures while low income countries increase pressures to adequately feed their populations. Additionally, considering principles of fairness applied, some nations are more responsible for causing historical environmental pressures and should shoulder more of the change. To facilitate more equitable shifts in global diets, resources, capacity, and knowledge sharing of sustainable agricultural practices are critical to minimize the increases in pressures that low income countries would incur to adequately feed their populations

2008 Solar Technologies Market Report

The focus of this report is the U.S. solar electricity market, including photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies. The report is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of global and U.S. installation trends. Chapter 2 presents production and shipment data, material and supply chain issues, and solar industry employment trends. Chapter 3 presents cost, price, and performance trends. Chapter 4 discusses policy and market drivers such as recently passed federal legislation, state and local policies, and developments in project financing. Chapter 5 provides data on private investment trends and near-term market forecasts. Highlights of this report include: (1) The global PV industry has seen impressive growth rates in cell/module production during the past decade, with a 10-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 46% and a 5-year CAGR of 56% through 2008. (2) Thin-film PV technologies have grown faster than crystalline silicon over the past 5 years, with a 10-year CAGR of 47% and a 5-year CAGR of 87% for thin-film shipments through 2008. (3) Global installed PV capacity increased by 6.0 GW in 2008, a 152% increase over 2.4 GW installed in 2007. (4) The United States installed 0.34 GW of PV capacity in 2008, a 63% increase over 0.21 GW in 2007. (5) Global average PV module prices dropped 23% from $4.75/W in 1998 to$3.65/W in 2008. (6) Federal legislation, including the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA, October 2008) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, February 2009), is providing unprecedented levels of support for the U.S. solar industry. (7) In 2008, global private-sector investment in solar energy technology topped $16 billion, including almost$4 billion invested in the United States. (8) Solar PV market forecasts made in early 2009 anticipate global PV production and demand to increase fourfold between 2008 and 2012, reaching roughly 20 GW of production and demand by 2012. (9) Globally, about 13 GW of CSP was announced or proposed through 2015, based on forecasts made in mid-2009. Regional market shares for the 13 GW are about 51% in the United States, 33% in Spain, 8% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 8% in Australasia, Europe, and South Africa. Of the 6.5-GW project pipeline in the United States, 4.3 GW have power purchase agreements (PPAs). The PPAs comprise 41% parabolic trough, 40% power tower, and 19% dish-engine systems