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

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

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

A joint goal among eight western U.S. states and Canadian provinces was formalized this week when the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) announced a goal to cut global warming emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The goal is the cumulative total of individual reductions goals for each state and province: for example, Washington has a more ambitious goal of reducing levels of the gases to 1990 levels by 2020.

California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Manitoba, and British Columbia have agreed to the cuts, which were conceptualized in February as a “Memorandum of Understanding” between five of the states.

The next step is for the WCI to propose a regional carbon emissions trading system with a year, complementing California’s Global Warming Solutions Act that calls for a cap-and-trade system of global warming pollution. Each state will determine its own method for cutting emissions; the agreement doesn’t require any states or provinces to do anything to which they aren’t already committed.

Janice Adair, Washington state’s representative to the WCI, doesn’t anticipate easy negotiations when eight entities come together to set up a market-based system for trading carbon credits: "How we do all that and come to the table — eight very different (states and provinces) — and try to negotiate the best deal we can, and not have anyone go away feeling they got rolled, is going to be very difficult.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had a brighter outlook: "Our collective commitment will build a successful regional system to be linked with other regional efforts across the nation and eventually the world.”

Other states like Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, and Wyoming are closely watching the proceedings, as are Ontario and Quebec in Canada and Sonora in Mexico. The potential – or at least the serious interest – is there for other states to get involved in a regional emissions compact and carbon trading agreement. With meaningful energy legislation not coming fast enough from federal governments, states and provinces are reaching across borders to make the real change we need on this side of the world.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Yuba Net

Photo Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

A thought-provoking new study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has found that locally-owned renewable energy projects generally hold more local economic benefits than large-scale ones.

The “Economies and Diseconomies of Scale” concludes that bigger is not always better. The Minneapolis-based ILSR analyzed the costs and return of wind power and ethanol, both major renewable energy sources in the Upper Midwest. While they are both less expensive to produce on a large scale, the costs of having to transmit the energy across long distances can negate those savings. That, coupled with the fact that large projects are generally owned by corporate or out-of-state interests, makes smaller, local projects more beneficial for the immediate community.

ILSR recommends that states follow Minnesota’s example, where law provides a favorable tariff for locally owned renewable energy projects, requires 51 percent ownership by Minnesota residents, and designates 51 percent of financial benefits to local owners. In addition, the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind should be changed to allow it to be taken against ordinary income rather than only applying to passive income (such as from rent). This would allow greater access to the tax credit and open it up to more individuals to be renewable energy investors.

A carbon-constrained world presents us with many options for change. Do we want to create – and is it realistic – a totally new energy system, one that is locally owned, producing energy for the local area, with the majority of economic benefits going to the local community? Or does the urgency of global warming demand as much renewable energy as possible, as fast as possible, owned by whomever possible?

Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Minneapolis Star Tribune

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.

Photo credit: NREL

A new study by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) found that U.S. manufacturers dominate the world’s market share of small wind turbine sales. Comparatively, global sales of larger, utility-scale turbines are led by companies like Denmark’s Vestas, Spain’s Gamesa and India’s Suzlon, who are also hungrily eying the U.S. market.

The 2007 Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study reports that about half of U.S. manufacturers’ sales are made overseas, and the other half satisfies about 98 percent of the small wind demand here at home. Small wind systems are defined as those with 100 kilowatts (kW) of capacity or less, and in 2006 nearly 7,000 Americans purchased them for their homes, farms, or businesses.

The key to building up the market for small wind, according to AWEA and other wind power advocates, is to provide stable federal tax credits and incentives. Ron Stimmel, AWEA’s small-wind advocate, pointed out that “small wind is the only renewable energy technology without a federal-level tax credit.” At $10,000 - $55,000 each, small wind turbines aren’t cheap.

It’s good news that, for once, the U.S. is leading the way in something small, clean, and local. Whether it’s for a community school, a farm, or a home, small wind allows people to reduce their reliance on dirty energy and create their own clean source. American wind power of any size, however, suffers from unreliable federal policies, like the production tax credit (PTC) for large wind that has to be renewed every few years. Wind farm construction increases quickly when the PTC is renewed and dies off as it nears expiration. This boom-and-bust cycle is bad for the wind power economy and our energy system. We need consistent incentives for a versitile energy source that can power a utility or a farm down the road.

Alternative Energy Retailer
AWEA Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study
State Energy Conservation Office
Union of Concerned Scientists

Image Source: Graphic / MIT School of Architecture and Planning

You’ve probably never considered crowds to be a renewable source of energy. Lucky for us, two smarty-pants grad students at MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning are trying to figure it out.

James Graham and Thaddeus Jusczyk envision harvesting the mechanical energy from human movement – like commuters in a train station or fans at a rock concert – for electricity. This “crowd farm” would be a responsive sub-flooring system and made up of blocks that depress slightly when people step on them. When the blocks slip against each other they would generate power through the principle of the dynamo, a device that converts the energy of motion into that of an electric current.

Crowds of people at a train station aren’t going to be enough to power the train itself: Graham and Jusczyk explain that thousands of people would be needed to make up the 28,527 steps needed to power a moving train for one second. But for smaller, very energy-efficient devices, the students’ idea could lead to something bigger: Their test case included a prototype stool that used the act of sitting to generate power. The weight of the body on the seat causes a flywheel to spin, which powers a dynamo that lights four LEDs (super-efficient lightbulbs).

The architecture students ultimately want an energy supply that’s integrated into a new sort of building system, one that harnesses the active power of humans to power a cleaner, more efficient lifestyle in the 21st century.

MIT News