The complaint filed by seven manufacturers has divided the US solar industry and resulted in another group, calling itself the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy (CASE), to form in response to CASM’s complaint. CASE claims that cheap Chinese panels make solar energy affordable in the US and creates rooftop installation and sales jobs.

The ITC may find US solar companies are in fact being injured by Chinese violations of free trade agreements. However, free trade isn’t the biggest problem facing solar manufacturing in the US. The biggest problem is that the US government hasn’t made a significant financial commitment to renewable energy or developed a long term strategy to make solar economically and environmentally sustainable.

A forward-thinking US policy committed to the economic and environmental sustainability of the solar industry would find ways to create business opportunities throughout the solar panels’ lifecycle, which would mean creating policies that support safe domestic mining, manufacturing, installation and recycling of solar panels.

The US is projected to be the largest solar market by 2012. It would seem that US policymakers across the political spectrum would get behind building capacity for US-based solar manufacturing. A compelling case can be made to support solar manufacturing for the purpose of addressing climate change, creating jobs, promoting energy independence and growing the economy.

In addition to being the largest solar customer, the US will also likely be one of the largest solar panel waste generators in the world. A commitment to long-term sustainability in the solar industry would include investing in recycling systems to handle the millions of tons of panels and create new jobs in recycling related industries when the panels are decommissioned.

Instead, policymakers are spending time obsessing over Solyndra. It’s important to determine what went wrong (if anything) with the Department of Energy (DOE) loan process – or if there is political favoritism in the DOE program. However, the congressional debate about Solyndra and the subsequent media coverage has supplanted all substantive discussion about the US long-term strategy for solar.

It’s hard to watch the US solar industry take such a beating. However, it’s not just cheap Chinese panels that are creating the problem. Some of the most serious blows to the industry are coming from our federal government.

The five National Sustainability Award semifinalist had the highest scores in the sustainability category and they all had some very cool products. Invelox introduced wind turbines that don’t use blades, Sanergy developed a waste to energy model that attempts to address sanitation issues of the 80% of the people living in Nairobi, Kenyan slums who don’t have toilets and Indow windows (the National Sustainability Award winner) creates low-tech window insulations. Semifinalists Dragonfly and May-Ruben provide products that reduce commercial scale energy use.

Although all of the start- ups are “cleantech” (meaning technologies that are energy efficient), the issue of sustainability felt slightly ghettoized in the overall competition. Eighty percent of the total CTO score was given for the “single bottom line,” which evaluates financial viability and determines whether the business will make money for its investors. Only 20 percent of the score was given for the sustainability category. The sustainability judging criteria includes Environmental Stewardship, Social Responsibility and Metrics and Reporting.

It may sound harsh to say that sustainability was ghettoized, but I want to emphasize that environmental and social sustainability practices have a long way to go before they are fully integrated and considered equally important to a companies’ financial sustainability.

Hopefully, more and more investors and consumers will continue to support companies that are socially and environmentally responsible as part of their bottomline. In the meantime, the CTO National Sustainability Award as well as consumer tools like SVTC Solar Scorecard are here to help drive sustainability issues into the core of the cleantech industry.

I look forward to getting involved with Cleantech Open next year as a judge or one of the many volunteer organizers who are committed to sustainability and finding ways to “front-end” sustainability practices into the earliest phases of business start-ups.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) has been involved in a process in California called the Green Chemistry Initiative; we have been working on it with other NGOs in the CHANGE Coalition (Californians for A Healthy and Green Economy).

For me, the process has been challenging. Why? Because it seems only logical that corporations should not put toxic chemicals in their products, period. And if they do, they should be fined in order to pay for the damage their products have on the environment (wildlife, waterways, etc.) and people (workers and consumers).

The process of adopting Green Chemistry regulations has also been challenging because a lot of the information is scientific and the regulations can be very confusing. There has also been a revolving door of people at the head of California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

The whole process has concerned me, as I feel many people in California are unaware of this process and what it aims to accomplish.

But that ignorance may change soon: This week, the new director of DTSC released a number of videos breaking down the process.

What a breath of fresh air! If you don’t have a lot of time to read the regulations, I encourage you to watch the first video in which the new director, Debbie Raphael, sums up the purpose of the Green Chemistry Initiative in ways that everyone can understand why this initiative is so important. She and DTSC deserve real kudos for making such a complicated, yet important, issue more tangible.

This week international news headlines reported that 500 people protested at the Zhejiang Jinko Solar factory near Shanghai, China.

The protesters complained that the factory spews dense smoke from a dozen chimneys and that fish are dying from Jinko factory waste dumped into a nearby river.

This type of pollution should not happen in a “green” industry.  But unfortunately it doesn’t surprise us.  In 2009 SVTC released a report warning of the potential dangers from the solar industry’s use of toxic materials.

At SVTC, we don’t want to see the solar industry follow the same toxic path of other high tech sectors.  We believe in the industry’s potential to live up to its green image by reducing and eventually eliminating toxic chemicals.

Since the 2009 launch of our “Toward a Clean and Just Solar Energy” campaign, SVTC has surveyed solar companies annually on their corporate and environmental practices and released the results in a Solar Scorecard.  The Scorecard is an important tool to identify companies that have made commitments to improve their environmental performance and transparency in their business practices. The 2011 Solar Scorecard represents nearly half of the industry market share.  While many of these companies have a long road ahead to be considered truly “green,” we applaud their initial willingness to disclose information.

Others – like Jinko Solar – are simply not responding.  Now we know why Jinko Solar has been trying to live in the shadows – they have been operating irresponsibly, harming their surrounding community, and building a dark reputation for the solar industry.

We are sorry for the people of China’s Zhejiang province who live and work in the shadow of pollution.  We are equally inspired by the community’s courage to stand up against a powerful company that is harming them.

We encourage you to use the Solar Scorecard and only buy from companies who are focusing attention on reducing toxics and protecting workers, communities and the environment.  The solar industry has a critical role to play in meeting the challenges of climate change.

Together we can ensure that it is a truly “green” industry.

But with the household products (paint, cleaners, etc), we were stuck with using the county recycling services because these products are also considered hazardous waste by law. It is illegal to throw these products in the trash bin and, unfortunately, there is no easy manufacturer takeback and recycling program in place. Trying to do the right thing, turned into a hassle.

Unfortunately doing the right thing isn’t always simple and this time, it was pretty time consuming. First, we had to fill out a detailed form for the county hazardous waste program. The form required a waste description, hazardous classification, total amount of liquid, quantity of containers and the size of the containers. The County did not follow up with my form in a timely manner, so I had to call them to find out that they had not processed our form because they had questions and (due to understaffing) hadn’t
had a chance to call back yet. Then I had to call the EPA to get a free “EPA ID number” (I do understand the need for tracking) in order for the county to process my form. The county was then able to give me our appointment time and date for the drop off. The problem with this? The earliest available drop-off appointment was a week away and the location was a 20 minute drive.

We were also sent an invoice to pay for the waste – which could only be paid with check or money order.

If corporations are going to create hazardous products then:
1) shouldn’t they be doing this job instead of the county?
2) shouldn’t they make it easier for their customers to dispose of it?
3) what happens with consumers who don’t know or do not have the time to deal with all of this paperwork. These products are going to end up in our landfills or dumped.

This is one of the reasons why SVTC is trying to get a handle on the end of life of solar panels NOW.

We do not feel that consumers should be placed with the burden and we know creating a mandatory takeback and responsible recycling policy will help to protect our environment and also create jobs.

I hope no one gets the impression that they shouldn’t dispose of their hazardous waste properly and responsibly. We just wanted to recognize that it isn’t always easy to do the right thing and this is one of the reasons SVTC exists!