Mayors from the planet’s largest cities gathered in New York last week to discuss how global warming is impacting their cities now, how it may in the future, and what immediate action needs to be taken to slow it.

The “C40 Large Cities Climate Summit” has partnered with the Clinton Climate Initiative to tackle climate change now, rather than waiting for action from national governments. At the Summit, mayors shared best practices, identified collaborative projects, and planned for future action together. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, explained why:

"The fight to tackle climate change will be won or lost in cities…We are not going to simply talk about what we could do, while the window of opportunity for preventing catastrophic climate change disappears. Every city here today is a leader in at least one aspect of the fight to tackle climate change."

Some of the cities' intiatives include:

• New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s controversial proposal for a congestion charge for Manhattan as part of the city's multi-billion dollar Green Plan.
• Toronto Mayo David Miller explained “Zerofootprint Toronto,” which helps residents understand how every aspect of their lives impacts the environment, and creates a network for people to join with friends, neighbors, and coworkers to create a virtual eco-community to create initiatives and measure results.
• Curitiba, Brazil’s Mayor Carlos Alberto Richa described a bus rapid transit system for his city to cut down on pollution from cars.
• Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced GREEN LA, an action plan to reduce the city’s carbon footprint 35 percent below 1990 levels. Villaraigosa said it is the most ambitious goal set yet by a major American city.

Summit organizers also invited business leaders in an effort to involve the private sector. Both parties discused how to work together under the conviction that fighting global warming – through innovation, transportation, and energy efficiency – is profitable.

Peopleandplanet.net
Washington Post

I saw it for myself: President Bush directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with the departments of energy, transportation, and agriculture to come up with a plan to cut global warming emissions by the year 2008. As for the details…well, they get pretty vague.

Bush spoke a lot about fuel consumption, again alluding to our nation’s addiction to oil, but never called for a specific increase in vehicle efficiency standards. He repeated his State of the Union proposal to replace 20 percent of the nation’s gasoline with alternative fuels in the next 10 years. He summed up his plan:

“When it comes to the environment and energy, the American people expect common sense, and they expect action.”

But apparently not too much action: The Washington Post reports that U.S. negotiators are attempting to weaken a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month’s G-8 summit of the world’s top industrial nations. Specifically, U.S. officials want to strike a sentence about energy efficiency,

“Therefore we will increase the energy efficiency of our economies so that energy consumption by 2020 will be at least 30 percent lower compared to a business-as-usual scenario”

and language to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Furthermore, the U.S. proposed striking an opening line that declares

“…tackling climate change is an imperative, not a choice. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and newly elected French President Nicolas Sarkozy are all pushing for a strong statement on global warming solutions.

The heads of the U.S. departments called on by President Bush to come up with a plan said a draft should be available by this fall. But will it be real action? While the President is calling for change, his representatives at the UN are doing everything they can to stall it. We know political rhetoric when we see it, Mr. Bush. Fool us once…

CNNMoney.com
Washington Post

There’s a lot of talk about China’s staggering amount of planned coal plants, and the narrowing gap between it and the U.S. for the title of Planet’s Biggest Carbon Dioxide Emitter. But China is examining at least one unique way to develop more sustainably.

Welcome to Dongtan, the world’s first CO2-free city. Developers are building this $1.3 billion eco-city just outside of Shanghai. Renewable energy will be used extensively, the layout of the city maximizes walking and biking rather than cars, and transport vehicles will run on batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Other plans include recycling organic waste, green roofs, and rainwater capture.

Dongtan will cover an area about three-quarters the size of Manhattan on wetlands at the mouth of the Yangtze River. However, Peter Head of Arup, the London-based firm heading the planning, said the wetlands are not at risk from the development. From the Architectural Record:

“‘First of all, water usually discharged into the river will be collected, treated, and recycled within the city boundaries,” he says. ‘There will be a 2-mile buffer zone of eco-farm between city development and the wetlands.’ While farming is water intensive, relatively small amounts of water reach the plants themselves. Head says Dongtan ‘will capture and recycle water in the city and use recycled water to grow green vegetables hydroponically. This makes the whole water cycle much more efficient.’”

But what will the habitants do in this eco-utopia? City officials and consultants expect jobs in education like at the planned Institute for Sustainable Cities, and they anticipate attracting companies pursuing clean technologies, food research and production, and health care. Dongtan is also expected to rely heavily on ecotourism.

Designers hope CO2-free city will serve as a model for the rest of the urbanized world. Its first phase includes a marina village of 20,000 habitants that will be unveiled at the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai. Nearly 80,000 people are expected to live in the city by 2020, and eventually designers hope to see 500,000 citizens living the good, green life there.

Architectural Record
Jetson Green

Pacific Gas & Electric, California’s largest electricity utility and one of the largest in the nation, is showcasing a Toyota Prius that it has converted into a plug-in hybrid at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group Alternative Energy Solutions Summit in California this week. The utility may be the first in the U.S. to demonstrate that a plug-in hybrid can power a home.

Like a traditional hybrid, plug-in hybrids have both an electric motor and a gasoline engine. But their larger batteries and ability to be charged with any 120-volt outlet allows for even better gas mileage than the 55 mpg average of a regular Prius. Since plug-in hybrid batteries can power the vehicle for up to 60 miles, about half of the cars in America could go everywhere they needed to go in a day without using any gas. Some estimates set the average fuel economy at 100 miles per gallon.

So what’s different about PG&E’s plug-in hybrid? Unlike most plug-ins that take in electricity from the grid and then are driven around during the day, the PG&E concept car demonstrated that any plug-in can also be used as a two-way generator.

These “vehicle-to-grid,” or V2G, cars are charged by plugging into a three-prong, 110- to 120-volt outlet. But if a home needs energy, like during a blackout or during high demand when electricity prices increase, a switch can be flipped to send the charge the other way, from the car to the home.

PG&E’s plug-in hybrid car powered a small electric heater and lights. The car could supposedly even run home appliances for several hours with a full battery charge. The utility hopes that the new concept car will demonstrate new ways to use hybrids and increase the demand for the cleaner vehicles. California’s renewable energy laws are pushing utilities to cut global warming emissions. Plug-in hybrids help them reach that goal by allow ing homeowners to use more energy at night – when wind power and cleaner fuels are available - and less energy during high-demand days when natural gas and coal plants produce the energy.

Prices for plug-in hybrids are expected to range from $3,000 to $5,000 more than typical hybrids, and it’s unclear how much money a homeowner would save by charging a hybrid with electricity. Although they would be buying more energy from their utility, they would save on gas costs. And although many areas of the country would be powering their plug-in hybrids with coal-fired power from the grid, governoment studies have shown that powering cars with electricity creates much less global warming pollution than power them with gasoline.

CalCars, a nonprofit organization that has converted about 20 hybrids to plug-in hybrids in the past three years, expects the two-way generator technology to be about 5-6 years away.

CalCars
PG&E
Plug-In Partners
Reuters
San Jose Mercury News, via Green@WorkToday

Gary Reysa and his wife cut their energy use in half with their self-designed “Half Plan.” A retired airplane product development engineer from Boeing, Gary continues to satisfy his mechanical and creative curiosity with an array of efficiency and renewable energy projects at his home near Bozeman, MT.

I spoke with Gary by phone on April 5th.

Green Options: Why did you decide to cut your energy use in half?

Gary Reysa: I’m very concerned about global warming, and now that that I have a new grandchild, I see the impact it could have on future generations. It’s easy to get the feeling that there’s not much an individual can do, so my wife and I thought: What can we do? Could we make a significant cut in our energy use and global warming emissions? Could we cut it in half?

GO: How did you begin?

GR: The Half Plan seemed really ambitious to us at first. For one thing, we had no access to special technology. But I had begun some projects back around 2000 when we moved into our house and I started keeping track of our energy bills. When we officially began the Half Plan, we decided to do the projects that offered the most energy saving per dollar spent for our climate, house, skills, and habits.

GO: Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to just buy carbon offsets?

GR: I have mixed feelings about carbon offsets. I wouldn’t criticize anyone for doing it, but it’s just not for me. I do believe there are a lot of places in the world where you can spend a few bucks and get carbon reductions. But I feel like some people use them to get out of doing real action.

I feel better about doing something directly that reduces my carbon footprint. But even with the Half Plan, we still have to buy green power from Northwest Energy to make up for what we use. We’re not completely independent of the power grid.

GO: You said you didn’t have access to any special technology for cutting your energy use. Did that affect the execution of your plan?

GR: Not at all – once we started researching it, we found out that almost all the equipment we needed was actually available locally.

We did a lot of different projects to cut our energy in half. We bought a Toyota Prius, installed a solar water heater, energy-efficient light bulbs, better insulation in our attic, sealed up the windows, put our computers on power strips (shutting off the power strips stops the computer from continuing to “sip” electricity, even when it’s supposedly off) and installed dryer venting. And those are just a few of the projects.

GO: Has the Half Plan been very expensive?

GR: So far we’ve spent $8800. The single biggest expense has been the Toyota Prius - but it’s also been the single biggest energy savings and biggest cut to our global warming emissions. It cut our transportation energy use by about 60 percent! We thought we’d be making a sacrifice by buying a smaller car, but it’s been great and we use it for 85 percent of our driving. We do live in the snowy mountains, so we need bigger car with 4-wheel drive part of the time.

I factored in a $4000 cost for the Prius into the overall $8800 cost of the Half Plan, because $4000 is the premium we paid for the hybrid features. We were due to replace our old Outback vehicle anyway (it had 205,000 miles on it), so the decision was whether to buy a conventional or a hybrid car.

Our other big expenses included the solar projects. In fact, I just finished another big solar project, but I haven’t factored that into the cost yet. It's a solar space heating project that uses solar water heating collectors to provide space heating for the house. The collectors are on the south wall of our new garden shed. They heat water in a 500 gallon tank behind the shed which gets pumped to the house.

Solar collectors for space heating

GO: Have the savings outweighed the initial investments?

GR: The savings has been phenomenal. We’ve invested $8800 and I’ve calculated that we’ll save $4600 in energy costs and 20 tons in global warming pollution each year. The cost savings will continue to go up as electricity and fuel prices go up.

One really neat project has been making our computer use more energy efficient. Our two computers and related equipment use about 270 watts of power when turned on. We put all of it on power strips. At night, we hibernate the computers and then turn everything off with the power strip switch. During the day we have the computers set to hibernate if they are inactive for 15 minutes.

This saves a total of 1624 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, 3200 lbs of global warming emissions, and $162 per year! This just knocked me out.

GO: What was the Half Plan’s biggest surprise?

GR: The biggest surprise was that there were no surprises. It was pretty painless except for the money invested into the projects, but we’ve already earned a big chunk of it back in our first year of savings.

It was relatively easy to do these projects, too. We live pretty normally – as in we waste a lot of energy! – but we started paying more attention to how we use our energy. To me, it would be fall-off-the-log-easy for people to do this without sacrificing or paying much. It’s just a lack of focus that keeps it from happening.

GO: Now that you’ve found the Half Plan so easy to do, have you thought about cutting your energy even further?

GR: We plan to cut it in half again. This time we will have to use solar PV panels for our electricity, which has a higher cost and a slower return than our other projects. But I’m not doing this next phase for the financial return; I’m doing it to cut my carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming.

GO: So the next half may not be so easy?

GR: We did the Half Plan without changing our lifestyle at all. But to cut our energy further, we’re going to have to make changes like drive less or bike more. That’s not a downfall for us, it just requires more work. There will certainly be lifestyle changes this time.

For example, we just got back from Hawaii. I felt guilty for spending 2500 lbs of CO2 to go! But I think if we’re going to get serious about making another 50 percent drop, then we will need to start thinking harder about trips like that.

GO: So how do you entertain yourself out in Big Sky country?

GR: I love the TV show Living with Ed. It's a reality show with Ed Begley Jr and it's about how he lives his green lifestyle with his wife in Studio City, CA. It makes technical sense, it’s very entertaining, and he really cares about the issue and lives his life accordingly.

For a good read, I’d recommend The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook by Godo Stoyke. It gives a long list of projects that people can do to cut their CO2 emissions and save money. It details the equipment needed, cost, return, energy saving, and carbon saving. I like the book so much I bought a second copy for our local library.

GO: Your website is a fantastic resource; very easy-to-understand information, graphs, and calculations. Any specific tips on how folks can get started on the Half Plan?

GR: At my website, Build It Solar, I have a Half Plan for People Who Like Plans and a Half Plan for People Who Don’t Like Plans, so folks can choose what works best for them.

I’m an engineer, and I know that simplicity is everything. When you have trouble with a design, it’s almost always because it’s too complex. For example, I found that the solar thermal designs are really simple and that anyone should be able to build it.

The other thing folks have to realize is that we are the problem. When you get mad about global warming, you have to look at yourself in the mirror. I read stuff on the Internet and I get the feeling that people are pointing fingers but aren’t identifying the problem as themselves. Instead, they want a quick fix or someone else to come along with the technology that will allow us to not have to do anything. And they feel comfortable about the fact that they’re not doing anything.

We’re the ones generating this problem, but that also makes it easy for us to do something about it. We’re in the driver’s seat to make drastic reductions. It’s easy to do. For example, efficiency is something you can implement quickly, and we can get a significant drop in emissions right away and painlessly. If enough people do that, we’ll have really made a difference.

GO: Do you think this can all really make an impact?

GR: My actual CO2 reduction is about 20 tons each year. If 100 million families did the same thing, the energy we would save we be about 25 percent of all of the U.S. CO2 emissions. That's huge! And the best part is that we know this can be done – with no help from new technology or George Bush. We can do this ourselves, right away.

With all sorts of vehicles touting fuel efficiency, low emissions, and a dizzying array of alternative fuels, what's a person to do? If you need a vehicle, how do you find the best one that does what you need but doesn't do in the planet? The answers aren't so clear-cut (so to speak).

Want a hybrid car? There are full hybrids and mild hybrids. The Toyota Prius, a full hybrid, connects an electric motor and a battery to a standard combustion engine. A mild hybrid, like the Honda Insight, works the electric motor only when extra power is needed. This can make it slightly more efficient than a regular vehicle in stop-and-go traffic, but it can't run on battery power alone and doesn't offer the same fuel efficiency as a full hybrid.

Then there are plug-in hybrids, which are out on the roads but not yet mass produced. A plug-in hybrid has a battery pack that can power the vehicle for up to 60 miles - further than most people drive in a day. If you do have a longer trip, the engine kicks in automatically after the battery runs out of juice. You can recharge the battery using an ordinary 120-volt socket.

Let's not forget about the whole swath of alternative fuel vehicles, which can be a murkier area for a lot of people.

Efficient and cleaner diesel vehicles - which can compete with full hybrids in terms of fuel efficiency - have taken off in Europe. According to Business Week, 50 percent of all vehicles sold in Europe are diesel-powered, by only 1.5 percent of U.S. vehicles are diesel. However, a study done by JD Power & Associates predicts that number to double by 2012. Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler all expect to sell diesel vehicles in all 50 U.S. states by the end of 2008.

There are about 3.5 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road right now, all of which can run on a blend of 15 percent gasoline and 85 percent ethanol, or E85. It's cleaner burning than straight gasoline, and helps strengthen rural economies. But many people don't even know whether their vehicles can handle E85, or don't have easy access to E85 pumps. Infrastructure continues to be an issue, and there's a lot of talk that we'll soon see ethanol made from a more efficient plant source than corn.

For better or for worse, there's no easy answer when it comes to "Which car is the greenest?" Whether it's hybrid, diesel, a plug-in, or ethanol, you'll want to do your homework when determining which shade of green is best for you. Click here for some of the latest models.

about.com
Business Week
Edmunds.com
National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition
Plug-In Partners

Mike Strizki’s utility bill is zero, thanks to some creative thinking using renewable energy technologies. By using solar panels, a hydrogen fuel cell, storage tanks and an electrolyzer, he has enough electricity even on the cloudiest days. And Strizki isn’t a hermit living in the dark off of snails and rainwater, either. His 3,500 square foot house is located in central New Jersey on 12 acres, with amenities you’d see in any 21st century home, like a hot tub and big screen TV. His renewable energy system even creates hydrogen he uses to power his fuel-cell car.

So how does he produce zero emissions?

On a sunny day, Strizki can get more than enough of his electricity from the solar panels. The excess goes to an electrolyzer that then breaks down a tank of water into oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere, but the hydrogen is stored in 10 1,000-gallon propane tanks. So when the solar panels aren’t producing enough energy, the hydrogen is piped to an air-conditioner-sized fuel cell that makes electricity.
The fuel-cell car in the garage is called “The New Jersey Genesis” and Strizki – a civil engineer – helped design the car and maintains it for the NJ Department of Transportation. He fills it up with the hydrogen made from his electrolyzer.

This sort of system isn’t going to be available commercially for the rest of us anytime soon. Strizki’s project is extremely expensive - $500,000, paid for in part with a $250,000 grant from the NJ Board of Public Utilities.

Strizki acknowledges that the enormous cost is a huge hurdle, but believes that, with mass production, the price of the system (not including solar panels) would be about $50,000 and the new solar system would be around $80,000 (some states like NJ offer rebates that cover up to 70 percent of the solar’s cost).

Then there’s the question of efficiency. Critics point out that electrolyzers are only 50 percent efficient. By the time the process is complete, the hydrogen that is converted back into electricity is only half of the energy with which the process started. Sending that power back to the grid, some say, would be more effective because it would displace other dirty energy sources.

Strizki has created a company called Renewable Energy International that engineers, installs, and supports renewable energy systems like his. Despite its costs and efficiency questions, he still believes that hydrogen is the best solution to our clean energy problems. “No one has said what I’m doing doesn’t work…Nothing is as wildly expensive as destroying the whole planet.”

Christian Science monitor, Via the Modesto Bee
Renewable Energy International

A California car company called ZAP is developing a line of electric vehicles and has recently added 12 new dealerships to the 30 it already has committed to its line.

ZAP teamed with a British design firm, Lotus Engineering, to develop an electric-powered, seven passenger, all-wheel-drive crossover vehicle that has a 350 mile range between battery charges. Although it won’t be available for several years with a starting price of around $60,000, ZAP CEO Steven Schneider said that they have the ear of dealerships suffering from stalled SUV sales and trying to capitalize on the electric cars' and plug-in hybrids' increased exposure.

ZAP’s creditability was hit in the past when it attempted to sell Smart cars made by DaimlerChrysler AG in the U.S. after modifying them without DaimlerChrysler’s approval. A lawsuit is still being waged in the courts, but Schneider told Reuters that now that ZAP has a partnership with Lotus, investors are taking them seriously again and the company is much smarter about its business.

The company also has plans for a microcar that can run on ethanol or gasoline. The vehicle should be available in the next few years. Currently in California, ZAP sells a small electric car called the Xebra that is mostly for city use. It's able to reach speeds of 40 MPH and plugs into a 110 volt outlet (like the kind in many homes). After a full charge of six hours the car can go 40 miles without having to be recharged. And yes, you can get it with zebra stripes.

Reuters, via Planet Ark
ZAP

As I mentioned in Introduction to Carbon Credits, there are lots of different ways to offset your carbon dioxide emissions and even get paid for them. Although more and more companies are offsetting their emissions and committing to carbon dioxide reductions by joining the Chicago Climate Exchange or the California Climate Action Registry, I’m going to focus on some tools that individuals can use to offset their carbon dioxide emissions.

A quick refresher: A “carbon offset” or “carbon credit” is an emission reduction from a project that results in less carbon dioxide or other global warming pollution in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Offsets are normally measured in tons, and are bought and sold through brokers and traders.

There is a lot of discussion surrounding carbon credits and a lot of different opinions. For example, some do not count wind power as a carbon offset for reasons such as wind is intermittent or because many wind projects would happen regardless of the carbon credits purhcased, so the projects are not additional renewable power. This latter concept is called "additionality." But some organizations do count wind power as an offset, such as a nonprofit foundation called the Gold Standard. This organization gives something like an official stamp of approval for carbon credits and is used by 42 nongovernmental organizations around the world and a number of governments.

There is also debate on whether tree planting and forestry projects are true carbon offsets. The David Suzuki Foundation of Canada specifically excludes tree planting from their definition of a carbon offset, arguing that trees are not permanent solutions to carbon dioxide pollution and do not address the fundamental problem of our over-reliance on fossil fuels. But the United Nation Development Programme does count forestry projects as a carbon offset.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether trees or wind power makes sense as carbon offsets. But once you have that figured out, take a look at some of the sites that I checked out for offsetting a year's worth of carbon emissions. I searched several sites that include a variety of projects – wind power and forestry included. Some sites that I found informational and easy to navigate include:

• An Inconvenient Truth’s “Calculate your impact” calculator that determines your annual CO2 emissions and then takes you to Native Energy, which allows you to choose the type of project you want to use to offset your carbon emissions.
• Carbon Counter makes it very easy to calculate your carbon emissions and then buy offsets.

Can’t offset a whole year? How about offsetting your cross country road trip instead or your flight overseas. Here are some handy sites I found:

• The Carbon Neutral Company is a UK site where you can calculate your emissions from driving (either a road trip or your yearly mileage) or a flight. It’s pretty easy to use, but the lengths of its flights are vague (i.e. “short haul” vs “long haul” flights).
• California-based Terra Pass has been in the news since it partnered with the online travel agency Expedia to offer carbon neutral flights. Terra Pass had a very easy-to-use website where you can buy a package that offsets your yearly road miles or a domestic flight. For example, it took me about 3 minutes to enter my recent flight to Salt Lake City and find out that I qualify for the “puddle jumper” offset package that costs $9.95.
• Climat Mundi is another UK site that's handy for calculating more accurately your flight or drive. For example, you choose from which city/country to which city/country you are traveling (including international flights), or how many miles you are driving or flying on a particular trip. I thought this site was really easy to use, but you do pay in Euros.

I hope at least one of these sites gets you on track to becoming carbon neutral, if you choose to do so. I’m exploring becoming carbon neutral myself and am learning a lot right along with you, dear readers, so comments or suggestions on offsets and your experiences with them are quite welcome.

Coming up soon: Are carbon credits the silver bullet? How can Green Options help?

Illustration: Ilana Kohn

Carbon Neutral Company
David Suzuki Foundation
The Gold Standard
United Nations Development Programme