Comedian, satirist, and talk show host Al Franken is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota on the DFL ticket (in MN, the Democratic Party is called the DFL).

Last month, Franken made an appearance at the Crow Wing County/Morrison County DFL summer picnic. I grew up in Morrison County, so I attended, and was impressed with the (relatively) huge turnout. I met Al, but more importantly he took the time to answer some questions I sent him via email about renewable energy and Minnesota’s place in the clean tech revolution.

Maria Surma Manka: What specific renewable energy legislation do you want to see implemented at the federal level?

Al Franken: On a macro level, I’d like to implement a national cap and trade for carbon dioxide. This would make the cleanest renewables cheaper than fossil fuels and reward sequestration of CO2 in the form of planting acreage.

I’d like to see more federal investment in pilot projects for renewables. Representative Collin Peterson has put in several pilot projects for cellulosic ethanol that would be conducted here in Minnesota.

When I have said I want an Apollo Program for renewable energy, I’m talking about making these kinds of investments in renewables, including things like tidal and wave power. The United States has to go back to investing in research and development. This means identifying promising technologies and investing in them.

Maria: How would you open up Minnesota’s markets for renewable energy investment?

Franken: I would refer you to my previous answer.

Maria: What is Minnesota’s biggest renewable energy advantage (i.e. what can we capitalize on in a clean energy revolution)?

Franken: First of all, we grow a lot of corn, the number one feedstock for ethanol. We also grow a lot of soy, which is the number one feedstock for biodiesel. So, obviously, we have had years of experience making both, and our state universities have been doing a lot of the research.

Wind is cleaner, and Minnesota is a very windy state. We’re ninth in the nation. We should really be exploiting that more. Also, I think we should reinvigorate our manufacturing base by building wind turbines in Minnesota. So many of the turbines - the mechanisms that turn the spinning blades into electricity - are made in Europe. Let’s make them here.

Cellulosic is only a few years away and we have prairie grasses, which are perennials and have very deep root systems, making them potentially a very sustainable feedstock.

Right now gasified biomass is being used as fuel in ethanol plants. We got a lot of biomass in many forms; for example, forests, especially in the northeastern part of the state, where we don’t have wind. As cellulosic technology develops, there is great potential in using our forests, managed in a sustainable way, to add to our arsenal of renewable energy sources.

Maria: What is the role of business, government, and consumers in a clean energy future?

Franken: The government has to find ways of encouraging businesses to make clean energy available and attractive to consumers. Government should take the lead in making green buildings, working in partnership with companies that develop green technologies, and by investing in energy-efficient transportation systems - light rail, commuter rail, etc.

Obviously, tax incentives should encourage businesses to develop technologies and consumers to buy energy-efficient products. This is one of those things where everybody has to work together because it’s in everybody’s interest.

Maria: What steps have you personally taken to fight global warming or make your life more energy efficient?

Franken: Right now I’m traveling from Duluth to Minneapolis in a hybrid vehicle - my family Ford Escape. I bike to work, when I can. Biking, as Jim Oberstar might say, converts a hydrocarbon economy into a carbohydrate economy. Of course, we recycle.

But the biggest thing I’m doing is running for the Senate, so that when I get to Washington, I can make sure that the things I wrote about in the first four answers can come to fruition.

Crossposted at Maria Energia.

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

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 recent study found that the clean energy industry is the fastest-growing sector in Massachusetts, easily beating out behemoths like financial services, healthcare, and communications.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Census was published by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, a quasi-public agency that runs a renewable energy trust fund of green power projects. The study found that clean energy industry had a 26 percent increase in jobs and now accounts for more than 14,000 jobs in the state. Those jobs are expected to grow three times faster than any other major industry, adding about 3,000 jobs in 2007. The next biggest increase was in the scientific, technical, and management services sector with an increase of 5.4 percent.

Three hundred and two companies, government agencies, and university research centers responded to the survey. Those in the renewable energy category said they will increase staff by an average of 30 percent in the next 12 months, while the energy efficiency sector will add an average of 25 percent more employees.

High fossil fuels costs and venture capital funding are contributing to the strong clean energy performance, as well as politicians and a public wanting action on global warming emissions.

However, the report also points out that the industry is still very young: of the 255 companies surveyed, 103 had annual revenues of less than $1 million. Most companies focus on selling their products to other companies within New England to speed up sales cycles. But this may result in limited growth if companies are passing up opportunities in faster growing and larger markets.

Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi agreed last month that by 2010, Massachusetts should offset all of its growth in electricity demand with increased efficiency.

The survey defined “renewable energy” as including solar power, biofuels, wind power, wave systems, solar-assisted fuel cells, and all fuel cell companies, although the study recognizes that fuel cell production may be powered by fossil fuels.

Business Journals
Climate Ark
Massachusetts Clean Energy Census

The big news this week was that the U.S. House passed an energy bill that for the first time included a federal renewable energy standard (RES). This RES – an amendment to the energy bill sponsored by Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA) – requires utilities to get 15 percent of their power from renewables by the year 2020. Other components of the House energy bill include:

• Moving $16 billion in tax incentives away from oil companies and putting it towards renewable energy.
• New energy efficiency standards for appliances and building codes.
• The creation of a Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board to raise national awareness of solar energy options. The program would be funded completely by a portion of solar industry revenues, with no appropriations authorized.
• A modified 4-year extension of the wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC) that limits the credit to 35 percent of wind project costs.

Not in the bill is an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) that was a hot topic as the session came to a close. By avoiding a vote on CAFE standards, Democrats avoid public in-fighting with fellow Dems from auto industry states, notably Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI).

The Senate already approved an increase in fuel efficiency back in June, which will be just another piece of the Senate bill to be reconciled with the House version in conference committee this fall. In addition, the White House has threatened to veto any legislation containing a renewable energy standard.

Renewable Energy Access
The Sietch Blog
Yahoo News

Finance ministers from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) met last week in Australia to discuss how to meet the region’s energy needs and combat global warming. Key to this effort, they concluded, is to establish a framework to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

Market-based strategies, like a cap-and-trade policy used in Europe, were discussed. A cap-and-trade policy sets an overall limit on emissions, and then grants entities (factories, for example) permits that allow them to emit a particular amount of pollution. If they emit less than what is allowed, they can sell the surplus permits to a business that can not or will not meet their emissions requirements. This puts a price on emissions and creates an incentive to lower them. The value of global emissions-permit trading was over $30 billion in 2006, with 81 percent of that in the European Union.

APEC economies represent half of the world’s trade and include the world’s largest emitters, the U.S. and China. Neither country is bound by the Kyoto Protocol: China because it is a developing nation, and the U.S. because it didn’t ratify it. Another APEC member and large emitter, Australia, also didn’t ratify Kyoto but seems to making some progress with the announcement last week that it will start a national CO2 emissions trading system by 2012 and set a global warming emissions reduction target by next year.

China plans to cut energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years. However, Finance Minister Jin Renqing told APEC members that developed countries have the responsibility to help developing ones with the technology to achieve this. China is the world’s largest user and producer of coal, and just passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of CO2.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello was encouraged by China’s talk of using market mechanisms to cut pollution. He foresees his country playing a larger role as energy demand increases in the region but traditional supplies dwindle or are unusable because of their global warming impact. He assured China that its development will not be interrupted by energy scarcity and that Australia has “a lot to offer” it in terms of energy security.

Bloomberg News

Besides the Udall-Platts amendment to the House energy bill that calls for a federal renewable energy standard (requiring 20 percent of our energy to come from renewables by 2020), another progressive energy bill may up for a vote this week.

It’s far reaching – both in terms of what it would do for the country, and that actually passing it may be a bit of a reach.

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) has authored a bill that increases the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018. Currently the requirement is 27.5 mpg – and that number has hardly changed in more than 10 years.

Unlike the current requirement, however, Markey’s proposed standard does not have a lower mpg rate for most pickups and SUVs. The Senate’s 35 mpg version that passed earlier this summer also didn’t distinguish between cars and pickups/SUVs. The Senate bill was strongly opposed by the auto industry and lawmakers from states with auto factories.

On the other hand, Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE) have a bill requiring cars to have a 35 mpg standard and trucks to reach 32 mpg by 2022. This version is supported by automakers.

CNN reports that speculation is swirling over what will happen in the House. If neither of these fuel efficiency proposals makes it to the House floor, then the House will work off the Senate’s version – which is stronger than the Hill-Terry proposal. So in the end, the House may not vote on fuel efficiency standards at all, thus avoiding the gamble that the Hill-Terry bill passes and guaranteeing that the Senate version heads to conference committee.

Or, is a perfect bill the enemy of a good bill in this case? If there’s a piece of legislation, supported by automakers, that gets us to 35 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for trucks by 2022, should we pass it in 2007 in lieu of waiting for perhaps another bill and another vote in 2008? Or, are we setting the bar too low altogether?

CNN
National Public Radio

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

A survey released earlier this summer found that while 82 percent of senior technology leaders from companies around the world “closely” monitor the global warming issue, most (65 percent) do not have a defined energy strategy for it.

The “Return on Environment” study included interviews of 420 senior business decision-makers from the U.S., U.K., Canada, and China who worked for companies with revenues the equivalent of US$100 million or more.

Despite over half of respondents reporting that they don’t have a defined energy strategy, 77 percent believe there is a need to create some sort of chief energy officer position to develop, implement, and manage a company’s return on investment in clean energy technology and sustainable business practices.

Joe Paluska of the international communications firm that performed the survey, Hill & Knowlton, said in a statement:

“Despite the hype, few companies are plotting a measurable action plan to drive return on environment…We expect reputation, risk and return to suffer until companies really stand up and take charge and industry as a whole sets the standard for measuring return on environment.”

Perhaps that will soon change. The New York Times recently profiled several global companies that have implemented a position solely dedicated to linking sustainability and efficiency with a better bottom line (and who are promoting it like crazy).

General Motors’ vice president for environment, energy, and safety policy, Elizabeth A. Lowery, says that ensuring credibility is a priority of her position. She explains that she “toned down” broad statements and claims that were part of GM’s “Live Green Go Yellow” campaign and added more facts (thanks – facts are good).

At DuPont, Linda Fisher is the chief sustainability officer. She says her job is to ensure that the company never overstates the “greenness” of its items. She’s helping to develop a scorecard that researchers can use to determine whether their work will actually produce products that are smarter for the environment.

Those who have been on the greener side for a longer period of time are divided over these new efforts. While greenwashing is a rightful concern, others are cautiously optimistic that corporations are finally making the connection that efficiency and sustainability can go hand-in-hand with profits.

Most importantly, consumers are making the connection too.

Hill & Knowlton
New York Times
Wikipedia

Cross posted at Maria Energia