SAN FRANCISCO - The green economy continues to show almost remarkable signs of vitality, business leaders say, despite the near-total collapse of global talks, stalemate in Washington, D.C., and polls showing decreased urgency to tackle climate change.

Driving the industry, investors say, are consumer interest in the environmental and economic benefits of energy efficiency, corporate sustainability mandates and essentially a bet that at some point there will be a price on carbon emissions.

"Although there was definitely a loss of momentum for green business after Copenhagen, many sustainability initiatives are not in response to regulation," said Marc Gunther, editor of Greener World Media, publisher of GreenBiz.com and the annual State of Green Business report.

Two companies that track clean-tech investments see signs of robust growth on the horizon. Nick Parker, co-founder of the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco-based outfit that tracks and advises green investments, estimates the sector could be a $3 trillion economy within 10 years. Last year private investment in clean-tech totaled $5.8 billion, according to Cleantech.

While that was down a third from 2008, all forms of venture capital were down last year,  the group noted. Meanwhile the share of venture money going to clean energy continues to increase, to 12.5 percent of total venture activity in the United States last year, reported CleanEdge, a company that researches and publishes on the sector.

Still, there are significant hurdles. U.S. industry overall "has not engaged the structural change required to materially impact critical issues like carbon intensity," said Joel Makower,  Greener World Media's executive editor.

One example: U.S. companies are increasingly setting and reporting emissions targets through such programs as the Carbon Disclosure Project. But participating companies represent only a third of the Standard & Poor's index of the top 500 leading companies in the United States.

Another example: China, Japan and the European Union all threaten to eclipse U.S. gains in the sector. China alone has spent $200 billion - double the United States' investment - and could end up spending $440 billion to $660 billion over the next 10 years, according to CleanEdge.

Before industry can impact climate issues and cultivate an internationally competitive clean-tech sector, the investment has to be much broader and profound, said Salman Khan, development and strategy director  for the environment division of Intertek, an international testing company that helps companies assess their green policies.

"The relative absence of policy more directly impacts businesses and regions that are energy intensive and highly regulated," Khan said. "It's a 'wait-and-see' game for most large utilities and big manufacturers."

7 Comments

1. 1. outsidethebox 12:46 PM 3/30/10

   Why are articles like this, especially from sources like this, being published in SA? Is it just for the purpose of trolling?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. candide 01:22 PM 3/30/10

   To the extent that a "Green Economy" is related to advancements in technology, and it certainly is, it is unstoppable. The "Green Economy" will ultimately be about efficiency and saving $$$, something that nearly everyone agrees to.
   
   Could the industrial revolution have been stopped - or, for that matter helped, by political action? Probably not.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. bertwindon in reply to candide 03:32 PM 3/31/10

   Yes - SAVING dollars. Most want to, but there is also the governments' need to look green - it's a vote-winner. This is demonstrated nowhere better than by the way in which they apparently continue to "invest" in "windfarms" - and now "off-shore wind". Neither of these "technologies is anywhere near self-sustaining - for well understood reasons - but does it stop them pouring Our money - Our resources - into their political campaign. And getting a pat on the back for it >? - why the hell should it !? If they were serious, about anything other than PC-ness, ships would be sprouting some kind of sails - that actually worked, that is.
   But what did we see ten ? years ago ? - some genius level tosser getting a huge grant to stick alluminium-pole sculptures out into "sailspace" on some small ship or other.
   The "idea" - at least - seems to have long-since sunk beneath the waves. I wonder why, after all they probably were about as viable as a "modern windfarm"

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. bertwindon in reply to candide 03:43 PM 3/31/10

   Maybe the "relationship" isn't quite that direct. A "Green economy" will be directly related only to sensible uses of "advancements in technology",.
   Before our "technology" all was "green".

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. jerryd 04:27 PM 3/31/10

   
   Eff and alt energy is going to grow because it has to to supply what we need at a reasonable price.
   
   The big problem is the subsidies coal, oil get which makes it hard for 'green' to compete. If they had their full, real cost in them instead of in our income taxes, health care costs, infrastrucure maintaining costs in them, RE, eff, 'green' would be the low cost energy source by far without any subsidies at all. And that doesn't even include CO2, GW costs.
   
   Wind, solar, CHP, CSP for homes, buildings are cost effective now but no one will build CHP, CSP units for us. These are all simple machines that last 30-50 yrs
   
   But even without correct policy, fossil fuels are going up making 'green' the way to go.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. eco-steve 06:22 AM 4/1/10

   I've been working with a research group on biomass pyrolysis for twelve years. All our funding came from donations. No private investors were interested until recently, when we went commercial. If we could have obtained state funding we could have gone to market ten years ago! Our business is now earning cash, and removing CO2 from the atmosphere. We have other green projects which could also benefit from state R&D funding, which would remove carbon from hydrocarbons.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. bertwindon in reply to eco-steve 09:46 AM 4/1/10

   WEll nice-one eco-steve ! You don't have to tell me about it. Since the mid to late '80's I have struggled-on with research into the possibility of a self-sustaining wind-energy system. One that returns several times as much energy during its life as is required to build another, that is. It seems that it IS possible !. I estimate around 5% p.a. of cost is available in very many sites, and much m,ore in some others. This is about 40 times that returned by "modern windfarms". The government's response : Like someone cut the phone lines ? bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom for details.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this