Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak may be the first mayor in the nation to drive a plug-in hybrid vehicle as his official city car.

Since he was first elected in 2002, Mayor Rybak’s official car has been a Toyota Prius. But the dramatically superior gas mileage of a plug-in hybrid vehicle prompted him to make the switch: he had his hybrid converted to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, from which he expects to get about 70 miles per gallon (mpg) compared to his average 40 mpg with the Prius.

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is like a regular hybrid with a cord. That is, its battery can be recharged by plugging it into a regular 120-volt outlet.

Typical of many PHEVs, Mayor Rybak’s car can travel about 30 miles solely on battery power if the speeds are 30 mph or less. If he drives further or needs to go faster, the car automatically switches over to using the gas engine. But for local city driving — when speeds are low and distances are shorter — he could go days without using any gasoline to power the engine.

Although most of Minnesota’s electricity comes from coal power, powering a vehicle with the electric grid is still cleaner than gasoline. But the Mayor and other city officials want to make it even cleaner: Minneapolis has applied for a state grant to install solar panels on some city buildings so that future plug-in cars could charge up using solar power instead of fossil fuels. Rybak told the Minnesota Daily:

It became clear to me that the two big things we had to do were convert to plug-in hybrids and find a way to have them use electricity from non-coal sources … I become very frustrated with people saying we need to do years of research on all these issues. Research is great, but the technology is there right now.

Last year, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to pass legislation promoting plug-in hybrids. The law instructs the state to buy plug-in hybrids on a preferred basis when they become available and encourages Minnesota State University - Mankato to develop flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles (plug-ins that can run on an ethanol blend).

Minneapolis has about 100 government vehicles that are either hybrids or use E-85 fuel (an 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline blend). Leadership from the city and supportive government policies could make plug-in hybrids a more common occurrence on Twin Cities roads.

BIOconversion Blog
Cal Cars
City of Minneapolis
Minnesota Daily

Photo Source: City of Minneapolis

Depending on whom you ask, emissions from air travel make up 2-6 percent of the planet’s total CO2 emissions (as a whole, the transportation sector makes up about a quarter of those emissions). But airlines in particular have been getting a bad rap among some in the environmental community because of it, and a recent conference of European airline industries debated how to brighten their image.

One British strategic communications firm argued that the airline industry essentially needs a PR makeover. Steve Dunne of the Brighter Group went so far as to say that the industry risks sliding into a reputation akin to that of cigarette manufacturers in the U.S.: "The aviation industry is just not representing itself properly or effectively to put the lobbying efforts of the eco-warriors into some kind of perspective."

I’m not convinced the risk is that dramatic — at least here in the U.S. While there are certainly efficiency measures airlines should be considering — such as being towed to a starting point on the runway instead of burning fuel to get there – advocating a total ban on air travel as some do (or even very high taxes) is a losing cause (by the way, I want to hear a convincing argument as to why flying on a commercial plane isn’t public transportation, like taking the bus).

But the pollution problems for the industry could take off: The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that while the CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer have decreased, the increased number of passengers overall has negated that efficiency. Furthermore, the World Wildlife Fund predicts airlines to make up 15 percent of all global CO2 emissions by 2041.

So while the airlines may not be likened to cigarette manufacturers yet, they should consider some reputation management now. And there are good things happening: The International Air Transport Association says they saved 6 million tons of CO2 by shortening routes worldwide. Virgin’s Richard Branson just announced that he’s planning a 747 biofuel test flight for early next year, and Northwest put together a taskforce of employees and managers that came up with ways to cut inefficient fuel use by 31 million gallons per year. To keep up with the increasing number of passengers and the increasing concern about global warming (including carbon regulation), however, the airlines industry will have to continue decreasing their contribution to the problem and keep telling the public about it. Telling their side of the story — while performing real, meaningful leadership — will keep their reputation from taking a nose dive.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

International Herald Tribune

Canadian and U.S. officials are respectively discussing impending regulation to cut down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Businesses in both nations are slowly getting the message and working together to prepare for – and perhaps help mold – the change.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives reached an “unprecedented consensus” last week when they officially called for action that included “absolute” emissions cuts. A national strategy is needed, they argue, rather than the patchwork of provincial regulations that have cropped up. Furthermore, they acknowledged that government regulation may be needed to raise fossil fuel costs, drive efficiency measures, and instigate greater cuts.

Being open to regulation and the need to fight global warming also opens the door for the business community to be involved in the policy planning. The Globe and Mail explained that a “key goal” in the group’s declaration is to stop any measure that would hurt the economy or penalize certain sectors.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his administration are still piecing together a national global warming strategy. In addition to government regulation, the business group recognized its customers and consumers for also driving the message that the private sector needs to change for the greener in order to slow global warming.

In the States, large businesses have made similar declarations as the Canadian coalition, and small businesses are also taking the lead. With 26 million small businesses in the U.S., they make up half of the economy and about half of all energy used for commercial and industrial purposes. This means that huge strides could be made in efficiency and emissions cuts if they work together.

A recent example is the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) Energy Stewardship Initiative: About 500 auto dealers have pledged to cut energy use by 10 percent, thereby saving about $193 million and cutting more than a million tons of global warming pollution every year. The National Small Business Association is working with the Energy Star Small Business program and has issued a similar efficiency challenge to its members.

Businesses large and small will be needed to fight global warming, and they’ve begun doing just that. Now, with pressure from voters and the business community, it’s time for Canadian and U.S. policymakers to take decisive steps and implement national policies to curb CO2.

Globe and Mail
CNN

Every year, Gustavus Adolphus College in tiny St. Peter, MN holds a Nobel Conference, authorized by the Nobel Foundation of Stolkhom, Sweden. The conference brings together renowned experts to discuss timely issues, like aging or globalization. This year, it was “Heating Up: The Energy Debate.”

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

Businesses seem to be flocking to appear green, lessen their carbon footprint, and talk about global warming. But scant mention of it was made in most of the reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this year. Should investors be concerned?

A group of state officials, state pension fund managers, investors, and other organizations think so. They are asking the SEC to make all public companies formally address the financial risks their company could face as a result of climate change.

Supporters — led by organizations like Ceres (a network of investors and organizations working on sustainability issues) and the Calvert Group (an assets management firm) — have asked for this disclosure before, and the SEC ignored them. This time, they’re hoping for action by filing a formal petition stating public companies should reveal their total global warming emissions, provide a strategic analysis of the risks and opportunities present by global warming, assess the physical risks to their operations, and analyze any regulatory risks (such as limiting carbon dioxide emissions).

So far, the SEC hasn’t said much except that the requirement for triggering disclosure is that the impact or potential impact has to be material to a company, and therefore material to investors.

The petition argues that the threat and impacts of global warming are financial risks and are material. It’s the SEC’s job to ensure investors have the information they need to make smart decisions, and because climate change will have major impacts on business, those risks need to be disclosed.

While some companies are reporting on global warming already, others find it difficult to do so. Differences in potential regulation — such as a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade policy — means different outcomes for certain industries and difficulty in assessing the risks. One attorney who advises utilities and energy firms told the Washington Post: "For some of our electric power clients, depending on how allowances are distributed, they lose or gain hundreds of millions of dollars. Some are winners under some schemes and vast losers under other schemes."

Green Wombat
Washington Post

There have been some major wake-up calls in the fight against global warming, starting with the United Nations scolding the U.S. for not doing enough to mitigate its contributions to the problem.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press that it’s "very clear" the U.S. is not on the right track, despite the Bush administration’s recent openness to even discussing the problem and the series of meetings President Bush has scheduled with world leaders.

More U.N. meetings begin today to prepare for the Bali talks in December that will include negotiations of how to proceed after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Thursday, President Bush convenes his own two-day meeting with 15 big-emitter nations. Some worry that his smaller, more limited round of negotiations will undercut the Bali discussions.

Our friends across the pond didn’t hear any good news on the climate change front, either. A representative of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the BBC that it’s unlikely the European Union will achieve their goal of keeping global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Martin Parry is the co-chair of the IPCC, the group that has brought us three reports so far this year on the science, impacts, and solutions of climate change. He told the BBC that the chances of humans keeping the average global temperature increase less than 2 degrees C is "quite little."

He went on to explain that the increase of more than 2 degrees will result in major consequences. Water shortages around the globe may occur (especially in areas with melting glaciers that depend on the freeze and thaw for water), heat waves may increase, and crops may be threatened.

Parry believes it is still possible to contain the rise in temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius, although, as always, our actions have to be swift. In the meantime, world leaders must discuss "very seriously" plans for significant adaptation measures.

Associated Press, via Kansas City Star
BBC
Terra Daily

While voters, businesses, and politicians are calling for carbon regulation, exactly what that regulation would look like is far from decided.

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are the two most-cited proposals for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Supporters argue over which plan would be the most efficient method of cutting emissions while allowing for flexibility in the economy.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on CO2 emissions. Those who favor a carbon tax say it will drive innovations and technologies that allow for the same amount of work to be done with less pollution, and decrease the demand for products that are dirtier and thus more expensive. Critics point out that a tax would have a harsher impact on the poor, while others argue that carbon tax revenues could be used to lower other taxes, like income taxes or payroll taxes.

A carbon tax also makes many elected officials nervous: New taxes, fees, or whatever you want to call them, are rarely popular with voters. One notable supporter of carbon taxes — although he’s not running for office anymore — is Al Gore. He has promoted a carbon tax in addition to implementing a cap-and-trade program.

A cap-and-trade system requires an overall cut in emissions. Companies that cut emissions further than required are issued permits that they can then sell to companies that can’t or won’t cut emissions far enough.

Promoters of cap-and-trade say that the system provides an incentive — rather than a heavy-handed tax approach — to cut emissions because companies can sell the excess permits. It also requires a definitive limit on emissions, while some are afraid that a carbon tax would simply drive companies to pay the fines, pass the increase along to consumers, and keep on polluting. Companies like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, and Toyota back a cap-and-trade policy, as do many environmental groups and labor unions. Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama also prefer it.

This fall, Congress could see a slew of measures to cut CO2. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are planning to propose a cap-and-trade bill. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is expected to introduce a carbon tax proposal — not in the hopes of actually passing it, but rather just to show how unpopular such a tax would be.

San Francisco Chronicle
Wall Street Journal, via Environmental Economics

Sunrise Powerlink is a transmission project proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). According to a SDG&E map, the 150-mile line would wind its way from Imperial County east of San Diego, through Anza-Borrego State Park, and down into San Diego. It would be the first new transmission line connecting the San Diego area to the state’s energy grid in 25 years. SDG&E says the line is needed to transport wind and solar energy from projects in Imperial County to San Diego, and to meet California’s requirements to get 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2010.

Simple, right? Hardly. This project has been hugely controversial. SDG&E’s cost savings numbers have been largely inflated, opponents argue that renewable energy projects in Imperial County don’t depend on the construction of Sunrise Powerlink, and SDG&D has admitted that it doesn’t need the line to meet the state’s renewable energy requirement as previously stated. Rather, opponents argue, the line will be a huge windfall for SDG&E and other contractors while hanging the ratepayers out to dry in the process. A recent article from the Voice of San Diego noted:

"The power line’s $447 million annual savings was cut to $142 million a year after erroneous calculations were uncovered. A solar energy project whose fate was once tied to the line has failed to demonstrate that it works on a commercial scale. SDG&E has equivocated about how much renewable energy can be found in Imperial County, where the line will begin. The company has waffled about whether the line is necessary to spark renewable energy development in Imperial County."

But SDG&E points to government reports that say San Diego will need more transmission capacity to meet a growing population. A coalition called Californians for Clean and Reliable Energy (Cal-CARE) has organized to support the project. It’s made up of a long list of businesses, unions, and government officials – but no green groups that I could find. Cal-CARE’s Co-Chair and former chairman of the California Energy Commission Bill Keese said in a statement earlier this summer: "By linking the state to abundant supplies of solar, wind and geothermal power in the Imperial Valley, the Sunrise Powerlink will battle climate change by helping meet California’s environmental mandates of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy."

Hearings at the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC) were delayed when Commissioner Dian Grueneich ruled that more analysis was needed. Hearings resumed in San Francisco this week and may run through the end of September. The CPUC and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management are expected to release an environmental impact statement in January, with a decision about whether to approve the line happening in mid-2008 at the earliest.

Cal-CARE
Energy and Nature
Rancho Penasquitos Concerned Citizens
Voice of San Diego

The debate about carbon offsets rages on: Are they a true solution to encourage investment in clean, renewable energy and offset dirty fossil fuels? Or are they indulgences of the privileged that allow us to keep on with our polluting ways and a clear conscience?

TerraPass is a popular, for-profit seller of carbon offsets. They’ve leapt into the limelight with strategic partnerships like the one at Expedia.com, which allows customers booking travel reservations to also purchase carbon offsets to cancel out their transportation emissions. But this popularity has also made TerraPass a frequent target of carbon offset skeptics who argue that their customers use them for nothing more than a sort of "get out of polluting free" card.

So the company decided to take a close look at its customer base itself, and just completed a survey that examined customer behaviors and attitudes towards energy. Among the results, the company found the "indulgence factor" to be untrue among their customers.

While Terra Pass customers are buying carbon offsets to counteract their unavoidable dirty activities like driving a car, they are balancing it with other direct action and changes to their own lives. In general, they are doing much more than the average person is to make their lives clean and efficient, and carbon offsets are a component of that. For example, 64 percent have installed compact fluorescent light bulbs (personally, I think CFLs should be a requirement before you’re even allowed to buy offsets), 26 percent take public transportation to work, 6 percent have solar panels, 50 percent have contacted their elected official about global warming, and 69 percent contribute to "green" organizations.

Are offsets a "get out of polluting free" card? Not always. But whether you decide to purchase offsets yourself, first take a hard look at the immediate changes you can make to your own life. Energy efficiency measures are often the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to shrink your own carbon footprint.

Los Angeles Times
TerraPass

Also on GO:

The Green Options Interview: Erik Blachford, CEO of Terrapass

There was a questionable bit of progress this past Friday at the Vienna Climate Change Talks, where negotiators agreed on loose targets for cutting the emissions that cause global warming.

The 158 nations represented agreed that industrialized countries should cut global warming emissions by 25-40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. But nations like Canada, Japan, and Russia delayed the talks, arguing instead for a more "open approach" rather than setting hard and fast targets. In the end, negotiators agreed that the targets would be non-binding and that each nation’s efforts will be "determined by national circumstances and evolve over time."

Some participants saw it as a good sign that developed nations are more serious about cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while others warn that there’s a lot further to go. Red Constantino with Greenpeace International told the Associated Press that CO2 emissions need to be cut at least 30 percent of 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid the disease, water shortage, and misery certain to afflict the developing world in a warmer climate.

Smaller nations pressured the developed ones for even deeper emissions cuts, to no avail. The UN’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, pointed out that if the world doesn’t act more quickly to slow climate change soon, these smaller nations will not be around to represent.

The United Nations-backed Vienna conference served as a starting point to guide the high-level international talks that begin in December in Bali. World leaders must begin crafting a new global agreement to put in place after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

While the U.S. did not ratify Kyoto, President Bush has committed to a series of climate change meetings. The first will be at the end of September in Washington, DC. Fifteen countries, the European Union, and United Nations officials are attending.

Associated Press, via CNN
Washington Post