It’s been a busy week for international climate change negotiations. A meeting of the United Nations and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have some watchers feeling cautiously optimistic of future global agreements, while others are less than impressed with the semantics.

The Vienna Climate Change talks saw more than a thousand people from government, industry, and research gather in the Austrian capital to discuss ways to fight global warming. This United Nations-backed meeting is preparation for the more high-level talks in New York in September, and Bali in December. The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012, and nations are scrambling to determine effective next steps that will address climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a global carbon market. Many hope for and expect more participation from nations glaringly absent from the first phase of implementation, like the United States and China.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he expects the Vienna meetings to give a good indication as to whether governments are ready to take serious action on cutting emissions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged governments to figure out the next phase of Kyoto three years before the first phase expires so there is time to ratify the law and be ready to go in 2012.

Austrian Environment Minister Josef Proell said in his opening remarks:

"Climate change is a huge challenge that can only be tackled at a global level and in an integrated manner… We do not have much time to create adequate framework conditions. Each year without mitigation measures is a year which drives the human and financial cost of adaptation steeply upwards."

On the other side of the world in Singapore, APEC has drafted a declaration agreeing to cut "energy intensity" by 25 percent by 2030 and plant nearly 50,000 million acres of trees. Energy intensity measures an economy’s energy efficiency – but clean energy supporters say this particular wording avoids any sort of serious commitment to cutting emissions. A spokeswoman for Greenpeace told Bloomberg news: "The APEC declaration is clearly ‘Made in the U.S.’ and covered with a thick coating of Australian coal dust."

Next month at a meeting in Sydney, Australia, APEC nations will agree to fund clean technologies and fight illegal logging. China has said it will support the Sydney declaration on climate change, and the U.S. is expected to attend the meetings.

Bloomberg
Independent Online

A survey of citizens in nine of the world’s most powerful economies has revealed stark differences in their concerns about climate change and the optimism that it can be slowed.

HSBC – one of the largest banking and financial service organizations in the world – surveyed nine thousand citizens across Brazil, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, the UK, and the US for the HSBC Climate Confidence Index 2007. Those in the developing economies showed the greatest concern about climate change, were the most committed to slowing it, and were optimistic that they and their governments could do something about it. In contrast, the British, French, Germans, and Americans had the least confidence in their governments to address climate change and were the least hopeful of tackling the problem overall. Researchers, struck by this low level of confidence, called it "green rejection":

"…a rejection of the problem, of solutions to it, and of the institutions proposing them – is a growing issue in the developed economies. This may represent a natural and temporary stage of disillusionment while people are asked to work hard at something with no visible result. However, there are signs that the rejection is deeper than that. At the core are a strongminded, generally younger, group of people, who are confident with their personal interpretation of climate science, comfortable with uncertainty about the future, and suspicious of the motives of both governments and companies. While a minority, this is a growing constituency that any climate-related initiative needs to recognise."

Indians were the most concerned about climate change (60 percent), citing natural disasters like the 2005 tsunami as reasons for their worry. The Chinese had the highest level of trust that their government would fix the problem (46 percent). Conversely, only 22 percent of British and 32 percent of Americans surveyed said they were worries about climate change.

Of all respondents, climate change ranked second – slightly behind terrorism – among the list of issues people were concerned about.

Hindustan Times
HSBC Climate Confidence Index

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the Bush Administration broke federal law when it failed to produce two required global warming reports on time.

The ruling was based on a 1990 law - the Research Plan and National Assessment required by the Global Change Research Act - directing the President to regularly issue two global warming plans: one that guides research and another explaining global warming’s possible impacts on the U.S.

The research plan was last issued in 2003, and is supposed to be updated every three years. The judge set a March 1 deadline for it. The report on global warming’s impacts is supposed to be issues every four years; the last one was updated by the Clinton Administration in 2000. A May 31 deadline has been set for the newest version, which will explain global warming’s projected impacts on the U.S. economy, public health, and the environment.

The Bush Administration tried to argue that it could decide for itself when and how the reports are released. They claimed they were already following the law by working on 21 different global warming reports, and were just starting to prepare a new research plan on the subject. But the judge wrote in the ruling: "The defendants are wrong. Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to when they will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

The plaintiffs in the case were the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth. The Bush Administration is reviewing the lawsuit and so far hasn’t commented on the ruling.

Center for Biological Diversity
International Herald Tribune
Wired Science

Australian farmers have teamed up with environmentalists to create the Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change, a group that wants to cut emissions up to 60 percent by 2050.

Although they may not agree on all environmental issues, climate change is problem that they know requires immediate action and can be slowed. Farming groups like the South Australian Farmers Federation and Agforce are on the front lines of having to adapt quickly to a changing climate and risking their livelihood in the process. Some farmers also feel that they haven’t received the recognition they deserve for fighting global warming. The Alliance acknowledged as much in a statement:

Australia is tracking close to its Kyoto target due largely to the efforts of Australian farmers reducing emissions, particularly from practices such as minimum tillage and ceasing broad-scale land-clearing, while emissions from most other sectors have continued to increase.

The group seems to be rather light on specific policy initiatives or technology recommendations, while their ultimate aims include creating “effective and sustainable economic drives” from harvesting renewable energy, providing social and physical infrastructure and services to rural Australia, and providing information and tools to rural Australians to help them prepare for some of the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

Here in the U.S., farmers have joined with clean energy organizations and traditional environmentalists to push a common agenda as well. While they may not agree when it comes to party politics, issues like clean, efficient, and homegrown energy have clearly crossed party lines in many areas.

Organizations like the 25x’25 initiative were started by farmers with a vision of 25 percent renewable energy by 2025, and farmers unions are working at all levels of government to push for policies that support local, renewable power. Wind energy and biofuels are common grounds for collaboration, as so much farm land is also in some of the most wind-rich areas of the country, and as the potential for biofuels that go (and grow) beyond corn continue to hold great promise as a clean, reliable source of fuel.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Australian Conservation Foundation

Renewable energy was in the spotlight during this last week of Congress. The Udall-Platts amendment to the House energy bill calls for a renewable portfolio standard (RPS, sometimes also called a “renewable energy standard”) that would require the nation’s utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. But it failed to get a vote yesterday because of computer problems with the voting system and a dispute over a vote on an agricultural bill. However House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed that the amendment would be taken up today.

An RPS is a key policy tool to create a reliable renewable energy market in this country. In fact, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) was spurred to create a new website called the Power of Wind to educate readers about wind power and why an RPS – and the Udall-Platts amendment in particular – is so important.

Besides information, the Power of Wind gives the reader suggestions of actionable items to promote wind power. Learn how to contact your elected official on specific wind energy legislation or tell a friend about the issue. AWEA also has an impressive new TV ad promoting an RPS.

The best feature of the Power of Wind is certainly the Current Issues section that explains wind power policies in plain English. I hope that Current Issues stays updated; it amazes me how many times I try to find new information on energy legislation, only to go advocacy groups’ online newsrooms or press releases and find that the most recent updates are from 2004.

The site is still young, but my recommendation would be to add state-level news about wind power. There is so much action happening around the country; it would be great to have one-stop shop for all your wind power news needs.

Overall, the site is much easier to read and navigate that AWEA’s main website, which is rather overwhelming, even for me. The Power of Wind promises to be an accessible, informational place for wind advocates and those wanting to learn more about it.

Today the U.S. House is likely to vote on the Udall-Platts Amendment to the energy bill. This legislation would require 15 percent of our nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources by the year 2020. It’s high time the federal government catch up to so many states that already have implemented 21st century policies like this one.

But in addition to broad state and federal programs, consumers can also do some renewable energy good for themselves, even if they don’t own a wind turbine or live in a sunny area. They can buy green power.

“Green power” is a term for clean, renewable energy. More than 600 utilities in 36 states give their customers the option to buy their power from renewable energy sources (depending on the state, they normally include solar power, wind, biomass, hydropower, or geothermal) rather than traditional ones (likely to be coal). Although the transmission system can’t guarantee that particular energy from a wind farm makes it to your refrigerator, the total amount of green electricity that travels over the entire system is increased because (ideally) the utility is taking all of the extra revenue and investing in more renewable energy sources.

My fellow blogger Philip Proefrock just covered a green power program he is considering in his homestate of Michigan. Green power programs do vary, whether it’s the location from which the renewable energy is coming (in state or out of state) or the source (I know of one municipal provider that promotes destructive Canadian hydropower as an eco-friendly option, so make sure you know where the energy is coming from).

Here in Minnesota, I purchase wind power through Xcel Energy’s Windsource program. The initial cost is a little more than $3.50 per 100 kWh block, but I also get a credit on my bill for the avoided fuel costs of conventional (i.e. coal) power. The credit varies each month, but my cost last month was less than $11. Windsource was also audited by the Green-e program to ensure that ratepayers’ money is going to build new renewable energy sources, and it passed with flying colors: Windsource funds the costs associated with Xcel purchasing wind power from private owners of wind turbines and new wind generation facilities across the state, so I feel good about my investment.

Find out whether you can buy green power in your state at the U.S. Department of Energy. If you can’t buy green power locally, consider investing in renewable energy credits (RECs) to offset your emissions.

Sierra Club, North Star Chapter
Union of Concerned Scientists
Xcel Energy

A large, old, rich, and impressive group of businesses leaders has called for more action to slow global warming.

The Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of 160 U.S. companies with $4.5 trillion in annual revenues, more than 10 million employees, and makes up nearly one-third of the total value of the U.S. stock market. They lobby lawmakers on issues like jobs, healthcare, and trade. And last week they released a statement on one of the hottest of issues: global warming.

The Business Rountable’s Climate Change Statement acknowledges that although its members – such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, DuPont, and State Farm Insurance – have varying views on how exactly to address global warming, they do agree on some essential elements:

• More companies should make cutting emissions a priority and report publicly on their progress.
• Energy efficiency should be increased 25 percent.
• Any legislative or regulatory framework must stimulate private sector innovation and investment, as well as consumer awareness of new technologies.
• Increase research and development in new low-emissions technologies.
• Investment in climate science must continue at a high level “so that we can better understand and predict the magnitude and timing of future warming of the planet."
• Policies should be flexible enough to realign timelines with the development of new technologies, price spikes, or economic competitive imbalance.
• Consider different policy tools, including cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or energy standards.
• Any policy solution should be economy-wide and not impact a particular industry sector, technology, or geographic region.
• Maximize access to limited feedstock and energy supplies (for example, figure out carbon capture and sequestration so coal could be burned with less emissions).
• Adopt a global framework where all major emitting countries (specifically including China, Brazil, and India) are committed to reduction goals.

I’m a bit wary of parts of this list. It reminds me of the discussion I and other bloggers had with Exxon’s Vice President of External Affairs back in January, where it seemed like a perfect global warming solution was the enemy of a good global warming solution. I wonder, if a solution doesn’t include a commitment by China, India, and Brazil, is the U.S. still supposed to stand still and do nothing? It sounds like it…

The fact that so many businesses – to varying degrees of seriousness – are talking about global warming solutions is encouraging. The Sierra Club dismissed the Rountable’s statement as an atempt to appear sensitive while seeking to ensure that new regulations accomodate its members. Well, of course they want new regulations to accomodate them. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. But where can we find common ground? All of us should be open to ideas and reasonable compromise, but also make sure we’re not fiddling while the clock is ticking.

Business Roundtable

Reuters

When Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed the $100 million Iowa Power Fund into law this spring, Iowa committed to investing in cutting-edge research and development to continue leading the nation towards a new energy economy. But it also established something even more ambitious: The Office of Energy Independence - and they’re hiring.

The Office of Energy Independence is charged with weaning the Hawkeye state off of foreign oil by 2025 – no small feat considering that Iowans use 78 million barrels of oil each year.

But put down your muskets for this revolution – Governor Culver is looking for anyone already working to research, develop, commercialize, or implement new methods of reducing our dependence on oil through renewable energy, biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, and energy efficiency. He’s currently interviewing about 50 candidates, with a Director expected to be named by the end of the month.

When describing the Office of Energy Independence, Iowa State University President Gregory Geoffroy put it like this: “We are going to do for biomass what George Washington Carver did for the peanut, and it won’t be for peanuts.”

(Carver was a famous scientist who attended and taught at Iowa State, and developed multiple uses for the peanut, including peanut butter)

Ahem.

The director will be expected to provide an Iowa energy independence plan and release an annual report each year on the state’s progress. The creation of the Office of Energy Independence complements the establishment of a climate change emissions inventory and registry, as well as the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council to determine the best strategies for reducing climate change emissions.

Office of the Governor
RE-AMP RoundUp
U.S. Department of Energy

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle is the true-life chronicle of author Barbara Kingsolver’s decision to move to an Appalachian farm and eat locally produced, organic goods for one year. She explains that her highest shopping goal was to “get our food from so close to home that we’d know the person who grew it.” Her husband and two daughters joined her on this journey.

The family raised an astonishing array of vegetables, fruit, meat, and eggs. They did buy supplies like flour, coffee, and olive oil from the grocery store, but they were able to grow the vast majority of their food at home or buy from locals. Besides Kingsolver’s accounts of the ups and downs of pulling weeds or dodging testosterone-crazy roosters, husband Steven L. Hopp provides fascinating food facts sprinkled throughout the book. He explains that if we all ate just one meal each week made of locally raised organic meat and produce, we could reduce our country’s oil consumption by over 1.1 million barrels of oil per week. Kingsolver’s nineteen-year-old daughter Camille offers sidebars of meal plans and recipes (my looming zucchinis thank her for the zucchini chocolate chip cookie recipe).

Steven and Camille’s practical commentary provide a good balance to the author’s more subjective arguments for eating seasonally. For example, Kingsolver implies that the reader will have a greater appreciation for food if they can’t eat apples in January, or that hours spent in the kitchen canning vegetables with the family is a happy time that brings you closer. It sounds great to me, but other readers may be swayed less by a touch-feely argument, and more convinced by the scientific health arguments for organic foods and the greater energy independence local foods bring (a typical meal travels 1500 miles to a dinner table). At times, I did get a bit tired of seeing Kingsolver’s world though the rosiest of glasses. Everything appears to be perfect, lush, beautiful, the most delicious, faster, stronger, healthier. I don’t doubt the superior taste and nutrition of locally grown, organic products, but I was waiting for another side to the story – some sort of significant downside or obstacle they had to overcome. The author admits this herself when she recounts telling a friend about a tranquil summer evening spent with Amish friends on a farm. The friend remarks, “What, not even a mosquito to bother heaven?” But perhaps Kingsolver’s point is that it is easier than we think to eat locally. In spite of the endless positive spin, her humor and thorough research were inspiring enough to get me to contemplate making my own mozzarella.

A thought-provoking surprise was Kingsolver’s adamant argument for eating meat – specifically locally bred, organic meat. She aligns herself with a vegetarian position, she says, except that she eats meat. She points out that “every sack of flour and every soybean-based block of tofu came from a field where countless winged and furry lives were extinguished in the plowing, cultivating, and harvest…To believe that we can live without taking life is delusional.” She goes on to explain that the oft-repeated argument that it takes ten times as much land to make a pound of meat as a pound of grain only applies to the kind of land where rain falls abundantly on rich topsoil. Cultures that live on less productive land like the Navajo, Mongols, Lapps, and Masai would starve without their animals. The argument for eating locally produced organic meat is perhaps a more realistic option for individuals who care about where their food comes from and its environmental and energy consequences, but who aren’t going to stop eating chicken or burgers tomorrow.

In the end, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle has a little bit for everyone. For those ready to set the loftiest goals, take the Kingsolver challenge of canning all fall and making meals from home seven days a week. For someone like me who has a love of food, gardening, and cooking, but who isn’t prepared to give up Cheerios (are they local if General Mills is located 20 miles from my house?), I walked away with a renewed dedication to my farmers’ market, an intensive search for local foods at my grocery store, and the knowledge that buying food that grew up continents away is as much of an energy decision as leaving the lights on.

Last week I covered the SmartPower and YouTube Clean Energy Ad Challenge. SmartPower is a nonprofit marketing agency that promotes renewable energy, and their challenge to the YouTube community was to create a compelling public service announcement for the agency with the idea that “clean energy is real. It’s here. And it’s working.”

The winner was announced on June 18th. Dan Sheppard, age 19 and a student at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, was awarded the $10,000 top prize for his ad “Telephones.” Although it didn't fall into my top favorites (you can see the top 10 finalists here), but it was simple, well-made, and earns a chuckle. Congratulations!