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

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy recently released an energy efficiency scorecard for the states. In it, the ACEEE considered state-level policies, programs, and technologies and ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia in eight categories:

1. Spending on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs
2. Energy Efficiency Resource Standards
3. Combined Heat and Power
4. Building Energy Codes
5. Transportation Policies
6. Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards
7. Tax Incentives
8. State Lead by Example and Research & Development

The “State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006” found that states are spending three times as much money on energy efficiency programs as the federal government. They’re also far ahead on appliance standards and building codes.

By documentng best practices and leadership across the county, a roadmap is created for states and other entities to learn from each other and work off of each other. Not to mention encouraging (perhaps) the federal government to catch up. The researchers at ACEEE found these states to have the best investment and policies on energy efficiency programs, codes, and standards in 2006:

1. Vermont, Connecticut, and California (tie)
2. Massachusetts
3. Oregon
4. Washington
5. New York
6. New Jersey
7. Rhode Island, Minnesota (tie)

ACEEE Acting Executive Director, Bill Prindle, described energy efficiency as a “first fuel” in the transition towards a clean energy economy. That is, the cheapest and cleanest energy is the energy we never have to use:

“Unless we accelerate the pace of efficiency investment, no clean energy strategy will work.”

Maybe Congress is taking some small steps: On Tuesday, the U.S. House voted 312-111 to increase programs that make cars and buildings more energy efficient, along with boosting research and development of clean energy. The vote count would in theory be large enough to overturn the promised veto by President Bush, who wants 4 percent less for the programs covered by the bill. The extra money in the bill would go towards research in wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower power, as well as ethanol and biodiesel. It doesn’t include anything about the new, sturdier nuclear warhead Bush wanted included.

ACEEE
Associated Press, via Yahoo! News

I cover the renewable energy beat here at Green Options, and I particularly enjoy writing about the states, communities, and businesses that are showing great leadership on advancing a clean, efficient, and innovative energy system for the 21st century. Although I agree that global warming and the related energy problems do require a federal goals, it is heartening to see citizens around the country taking action in spite of Washington.

This week brings a lot of renewable energy news from the states. So instead of covering just one, here’s a run down on the big legislative action that’s been going down. Do you know what’s going on in your state?

• Hawaii became the 2nd state in the nation, after California, to pass a statewide cap on global warming emissions. On July 1 the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2007 took effect, which aims to bring emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020. A 10-member Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Task Force will develop a plan by the end of 2009 for “maximum practicality and technically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” by 2009.

• Florida is set to enact tough new emissions standards for air pollution that will attempt to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. New limits would go into effect for automobiles and trucks, toughen energy efficiency goals and require that state-owned vehicles use cleaner fuels like ethanol and biodiesel. Electric utilities would also be required to cut emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and generate at least 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources.

• Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed legislation to increase the use of renewable energy from sources such as wind, hydroelectricity, solar power, hydrogen, and biomass. Specifically, utilities must get 11 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Not as aggressive of an objective as other states, but it’s a start. Also, at least 70 percent of the state’s fleet of new vehicles must be flex fuel.

• New Jersey passed a global warming law this week that requires the state to cut global warming emission to 1990 levels by 2020.

CBN News
CNNMoney.com
Environment News Service
Renewable Energy Access

A new study shows that renewable energy could save the world $180 billion dollars each year in fuel costs and cut emissions in half by 2050.

The European Renewable Energy Council teamed up with Greenpeace International to examine how much the planet would save in terms of energy and money by investing heavily in renewable energy. And by heavily, I mean taking all of the $250 billion of subsidies currently given to the coal and gas industries and switching to investments and policies that focus on renewable sources. That also means an extra global investment of $22 billion in clean, renewable power plants. But by changing direction, the global clean energy market could be worth an annual $288 billion by 2030, up from $50 billion in 2006, and we would drastically cut our global warming emissions.

Businesses and governments would see the cost savings by investing in resources like wind, solar, and geothermal power, as well as biofuels.

The report is the financial argument for Greenpeace’s "Energy Revolution" plan for how to cut the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50 percent by 2050, while maintaining global economic growth.

Bloomberg, via the Financial Express
Environment News Service
The Sietch Blog

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

Last week, the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee passed the Green Jobs Act of 2007 (HR 2847) by a vote of 26-18. Originally introduced by Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) and John Tierney (D-MA), the Green Jobs Act would authorize up to $125 million in funding to establish national and state job training programs for about 35,000 U.S. workers. These jobs training would help to address the shortages in green industries such as solar panel installation, building weatherization, and wind turbine maintenance.

Congresswoman Solis explained why the bill is important:

"… I know that we can achieve the goals of becoming energy independent and reducing our global warming emissions. But the strength of our nation’s economy depends on the availability of a highly skilled and well-trained work force. This legislation is an opportunity to advance not only the energy security of our nation, but also the economic security of our families.”

During committee deliberation, Democrats defeated a Republican amendment to include coal-to-liquid technologies. Fuel from liquid coal produces more than double the amount of global warming pollution as petroleum-based fuels and doesn't help to solve the climate change problem.

The Green Jobs Act is part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Energy Independence Day” plan. Other parts of the plan include bills that would set new energy-efficiency standards for home appliances, require more efficient lighting, promote green buildings in the public and private sectors, provide long-term incentives for companies to invest in renewable energy, and spend $3.5 billion over five years to improve how the U.S. grows and produces biofuels.

Congresswoman Solis
Gristmill, via Topix
Tri-Valley Herald
Washington Post
The Green Options Interview: Van Jones

Prince Charles has cut his global warming emissions by 9 percent in the past year, according to an annual review (printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based ink) of the prince’s accounts. Charles has been carbon neutral since 2005.

More trains trips, less plane trips, and a Jaguar and Land Rover that run on cooking oil have sliced his footprint. He also farms organically, and gets electricity from renewable sources at his Highgrove estate.

Charles and his wife, Camilla, have promised to cut emissions even further. Future plans include converting the royal train to biodiesel fuel (Europe’s first biodiesel-powered passenger train – Virgin Trains – left the station earlier this month, a project of Virgin’s Sir Richard Branson).

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, praised the prince’s leadership:

"The fact that he reduced his carbon emissions by 9 percent in the last year alone highlights the potential for making rapid cuts in the nation's contribution to climate change.”

Others are more critical. Charles took heat a few months ago when he flew to New York to receive an environmental award. The prince’s principal private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, explained that Charles uses carbon offsets like funding tree planting or renewable energy projects to balance out the travel. “We’re doing it the best way we can at the moment,” he noted.

CNN

Late last week in a vote of 65-27, the Senate passed an energy bill that made progress in some areas but was stripped down in others.

The crown jewel was certainly a near-40 percent increase in fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles by 2020. For the first time, SUVs, vans, and small trucks fall under the same regulations as passenger cars. Each vehicle group must achieve a 10 miles per gallon (mpg) increase in fuel efficiency by the target year, with an overall average requirement for the manufacturer’s fleet increasing from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. The current requirement has not changed in nearly 20 years.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) fought the standards and wanted to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel requirement. But he admitted that one reason for his effort’s failure was the growing concern over global warming. From the Associated Press:

“‘The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming,’ Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is ‘a juicy target.’”

Although an improvement in fuel efficiency is a long-overdue step forward, some perspective is required. Watthead over at Cleanergy.org points out the 35 mpg standards by 2020 is about where China and Japan are today, where the European Union was five years ago, and where states that adopt California’s tailpipe standards will be in five years.

Other achievements in the energy bill include:

• A 36 billion gallon by 2022 renewable fuels standard, including the specification that at least 60 percent of the requirement must be met by “next generation” biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is not made from corn but rather other plant materials like switchgrass.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards, as well as a requirement that the federal government accelerate the use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• The development of an action plan (but not a requirement) to cut oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017. That’s roughly the same as the total current imports of oil from the Middle East. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for the plan.

Here’s what didn’t make it in the energy bill:

• No support for coal-to-liquids synthetic fuel production and no support for expanded coal, nuclear, or oil use. So although some key pieces of progressive clean energy legislation were left out, at least we’re (so far) not expanding more of our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

• No package that would have extended production tax credits and other financial incentives and offsets for renewable energy. The $32 billion package, previously approved 15-5 by the Senate Finance Committee, also included a repeal of tax credits for major gas and oil companies' domestic manufacturing activities.

• No national renewable energy standard that would have required 15 percent of our energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2020.

The Senate energy bill now awaits action in the House. The House Ways and Means Committee passed a tax provision last week that includes support for wind and biodiesel. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representative Edward Mackey (D-MA) have both agreed that gasoline use must be more efficient and plan to work to ensure that the House’s action mirrors the Senate’s.

Associated Press, via CIO Today
BioCycle
Cleanergy.org
Sioux Falls Argus Leader

Erik Blachford is the new CEO of TerraPass, a carbon offset company. When a consumer buys a carbon offset to offset the emissions from their driving, a trip, or even a wedding, TerraPass uses that money to fund renewable energy products.

Erik has never been a full-time environmentalist, although he is member of a few national organizations. In a former life he was the CEO of Expedia, although he left the company before its partnership with TerraPass was established. Erik is excited about the new venture, explaining on a recent blog post,

“Back in Internet pre-history, at the dawn of online travel, nobody knew you could even check airline ticket prices online, much less book tickets. Now almost half of all travel is booked online. I think we’re at the beginning of another explosion in consumer awareness, this time in the voluntary carbon markets.”

I spoke with Erik by phone on May 25th.

Green Options: How do you respond to carbon offset skeptics? For example, the argument that offsets are just an easy way for people to pay off their pollution without much sacrifice.

Erik Blachford: I hear that argument a lot, but it’s not accurate as to what TerraPass does. People who buy carbon offsets aren’t just sitting back afterwards and thinking they’ve done their duty. These people are active in other ways, too: they’re very in tuned to the problem and the other solutions. Furthermore, carbon offsets are a voluntary enterprise; no one is forcing someone to buy carbon offsets.

However, there is also a lot of talk about common umbrella standards for carbon offsets, and I think TerraPass and our customers would be better served with them. Our industry needs consumer protection standards. Right now it’s unregulated, and the consumer has to be very cautious. Consumers are taking the initiative and doing the research on which carbon offset programs are legitimate, but they shouldn’t be expected to do all of the work.

GO: What makes TerraPass different from other carbon offset companies?

EB: Terra Pass focuses on helping the individual consumer reduce emissions, rather than only large corporations. We want to help individuals take action to reduce their carbon footprint. We’re also very accessible. The company has a blog where we can communicate with customers and get their feedback and ideas.

GO: You support a number of different renewable energy and efficiency projects. Why did TerraPass get involved in biomass? You don’t see that as a carbon offset very often.

EB: It’s great to be able to work with biomass providers. Energy from biomass is produced by capturing methane from sources like cow manure and burning it. We’ve set up contracts with them, buy credits and register them on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). We are very careful to ensure that our carbon offsets are not counted twice.

GO: I don’t see tree planting – a very popular offset – as a TerraPass option. Why not?

EB: Trees plantings are popular offsets because they’re intuitively appealing. But the science doesn’t hold up enough for us to sell them. Some science is based on the average age of a tree being 80-100 years, but that’s just not always the case. And when the tree dies and rots, that carbon dioxide goes back into the atmosphere. There are some carbon offset programs that focus on the conservation of forests rather than tree planting, and that’s an interesting avenue that TerraPass may explore in the future.

GO: What percentage of carbon offset costs goes to the projects?

EB: We don’t break that out, because we don’t think offsets are commodity products, which is what that kind of breakout would imply. We are more focused on our pricing to consumers, which is competitive though not rock bottom, because it reflects the work we put into researching our projects thoroughly and sticking to principles like matched maturity of credits. We could probably sell offsets for a lower price if we we’re willing to sell credits from previous or future years, to buy blind on the CCX, or to buy forestry projects, but we have decided not to do any of those.

GO: How do you assure customers that their money is making a real difference?

EB: We make sure that the customer knows what we’re doing. We publish a verification report each year and we use three protocols to verify our credits: Green-e certifies our wind power projects, SES certifies our biomass, and First Environment certifies our landfill gas projects.

GO: What are some challenges and advantages of the U.S. carbon market?

EB: The U.S. didn’t sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, so one challenge is that the idea of carbon offsets is still fairly new here. There’s a general awareness of the issue, but carbon offsets still feel more exotic to people than they really are. It’s just a lack of awareness that we need to work on.

However, an advantage is that the American consumer is generally very open to new ideas and is very action-oriented. They want to take responsibility and do something, so the mindset of the consumer is right for a carbon offset market.

GO: TerraPass is well-known for its relationship with Expedia. How do you see that relationship evolving?

EB: We’ve got a great relationship with Expedia. It gets our brand out there and we look forward to continuing our relationship.

GO: I’ve got to say, it’s difficult to find the TerraPass option on Expedia’s site. It kind of gets lost in the shuffle of offers for car rentals and zoo passes.

EB: Expedia has many different lists of add-ons for their trips, so TerraPass is lumped with many other options. But we’re really happy to have the brand out there.

GO: If you could partner with any other company or entity, who would it be?

EB: That’s a really good question, but my answer is going to sound really funny. I really want to partner with the federal government. Global warming and emission reductions are a national problem. We need federal action and federal standards to solve it.

Image source: Zimbio

The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have formally agreed to make their energy systems more efficient. A regional strategy will be implemented to better coordinate and exchange energy research, science, and technology. As one U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) official put it, the three countries are shifting towards a “North American perspective” as they explore how more synergy among their systems will help move us towards a cleaner, more efficient energy system and fight global warming.

This announcement seemed to come out of thin air to me. But apparently these talks stem from the North American Energy Work Group (NAEWG) that was formed in 2001 to improve transparency and regulatory compatibility, promote the development of resources and infrastructure, increase cooperation on efficiency standards, and address challenges on the demand side. The NAEWG began as a place to generate ideas, but has since evolved into developing plans for concrete results and the exchange of information and technology.

Energy efficiency was the top priority because of volatile natural gas and oil prices. Efficiency is also the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to cut global warming emissions. The three nations will work together to expand the U.S.’s Energy Star program and share best practices and technologies in areas like fuel efficiency and biofuels, which have also been identified as high priorities. The plans specifically intend to benefit businesses, making it easier for those that manufacture appliances, lighting products and electrical equipment to do business across the continent.

More details of a cohesive energy efficiency plan are expected in June, with talks on other energy areas to follow.

Cross posted at Maria Energia

United Press International
U.S. INFO
The White House