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 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 

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

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

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

We can stop the chest beating and flag waving, folks: China has passed the U.S. as the largest annual emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution.

Although some analysts didn’t expect China to overtake the U.S. for several years, the U.K. newspaper The Guardian reports that the Asian nation is now the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, a main contributor to global warming. However, the U.S. still remains the largest cumulative contributor to climate change, and our per capita CO2 emissions are four times that of China. Whew.

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which crunched the numbers, noted that China's soaring demand for coal (the equivalent of one coal plant is built each week) and surge in cement production (a very energy-intensive process) helped push it to the top. Although the statistics don’t include other sources of CO2 pollution, such as aviation, shipping, gas flaring and underground coal fires, a scientist from the Agency noted that those numbers would likely not affect China’s top spot.

The announcement may put more pressure on world leaders to work out a climate change agreement that includes China in the solution, as well as the U.S. Earlier this month, China unveiled a plan to cut energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010. But as the GDP grows, so too will its emissions. It has stressed that technology and costs are major barrier to energy efficiency, and wants international help moving towards a low-carbon economy.

It’s Getting Hot in Here
The Guardian
Technology Review

A new nonprofit group called Climate Counts has released its first annual scorecard ranking companies on what they are doing to slow climate change. Specifically, 56 consumer businesses in eight categories were examined on how they measure global warming emissions, their plans to reduce them, their support or opposition to regulation and – the most important to their ultimate score – how fully they disclose those activities.

No company achieved the perfect score of 100 and only four scored a 70 or better: Canon, IBM, Nike, and the consumer foods giant Unilever. Six companies scored zero: Jones Apparel Group, CBS Corp., Burger King Holdings Inc., Darden Restaurants Inc., Wendy's International Inc. and Amazon.com. Even yogurt-maker Stonyfield Farm, which provided $500,000 in seed money for Climate Counts and whose CEO chairs the group, scored only a 63 because of lack of disclosure and lagging use of renewable energy.

Companies that scored much higher than their competitors were thrilled, of course. Coca-Cola scored a 57 compared to PepsiCo’s 26. Jeff Seabright, Coca-Cola’s vice president for environment and water resources, told the New York Times "Data shows that environment is an increasing part of informed consumer choice and this score recognizes our leadership.”

Other companies were not happy with their scores, especially if they were low because of disclosure issues. Avon Products scored an 11, but its director of corporate responsibility explained that the company has been “quietly” doing the right thing by making strides in energy efficiency, recycling, and packaging reductions for years.

I’m impressed with the usability of Climate Counts information: The website has a handy pocket guide that ranks the companies by sector (making it easy to take with you shopping) and soon a company’s ranking may be available via cell phone.

Cross posted at Maria Energia

Climate Counts
New York Times
Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Group of Eight (G8) summit brought the planet’s most powerful economies together last week to discuss issues like foreign policy, trade, and climate change. Buzz and speculation abounded before the meeting even began when the Bush Administration came out against host country Germany’s proposal to limit global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and to cut emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels. Instead, President Bush proposed his own plan for a series of meetings from which nations would agree on an emissions goal and then figure out how to achieve that goal on their own. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel was quoted as saying that her proposal was “non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.”

Well, turns out her proposal was quite negotiable. Rather than agreeing on concrete cuts, the G8 agreed to “seriously consider” cutting emissions 50 percent by 2050. They plan to develop a global framework on emissions by the end of 2008, and they affirmed the importance of developing nations to limit emissions.

What happened? Where’s the hard talk, the aggressive goals, the accountability? They’re just going to “seriously consider” it?

It seems that most world leaders were so happy that the United States was even in on the talks that the rest was second fiddle. British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the agreement "a major, major step forward." Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said it was "a very positive outcome." The Financial Times editorialized that "the G8 summit marks a turning point on tackling climate change." Even Chancellor Merkel said she was "very satisfied" with the meetings.

Others were less satisfied. Daniel Mittler, climate policy advisor of Greenpeace International said of the meetings, “The U.S. isolation in refusing to accept binding emission cuts has become blindingly obvious…” Likewise, Philip Clapp of the U.S. National Environmental Trust said that although Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Blair were portraying the agreement positively, "President Bush didn't give them an inch. The best they could get from him was a statement that their 50 percent-by-2050 emissions reduction proposal would be `seriously considered.` That's a pretty tiny landmark."

Did the G8 leaders fall to the lowest common denominator? Would it not have been better for them to move forward without the United States and commit to Merkel’s targets?

Financial Times
G-8 Summit 2007
Guardian
Taipei Times