Clean energy was the hot topic at the National Press Club this week, where public leaders gathered to discuss "Securing a Clean Energy Future." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was there, as was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and Minnesota Governor and president of the National Governors Association (NGA), Tim Pawlenty (R).

Pawlenty explained that cutting global warming emissions was a top priority for the group of governors, with the hope that it would spur federal action. From the Associated Press: "We have a federal government that doesn’t seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said… If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy.”

So far, 12 states have plans to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

The NGA announced an 8-governor task force to advance clean energy development in the states, and the Energy Department promised $610,000 to support its work.

But we may want to dig a little deeper into Pawlenthy’s enthusiasm. He supports the construction of the dirty Big Stone II coal plant, proposed for two miles over the Minnesota border in South Dakota. Minnesota is slated to receive a large portion of its electricity, and also has a say in the construction of the plant.

Pawlenty said that he disagrees with the statement "the future involved no coal"; he wants "clean" coal technology and carbon sequestration. Okay, but the controversial Big Stone II plant has neither of those, and some worry that its construction will make it harder for Minnesota to reach its renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewables by 2020. Pawlenty conceded that there would be an "awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on." Except that the coal plants hang around for 50 years.

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

They may not have been rocking out at Live Earth, but business leaders from 150 companies around the world – including 30 Fortune Global 500 ones - have called for action on global warming.

The leaders signed a declaration at the United Nations Global Compact Leaders Summit, committing themselves to cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from their products and services and to report annually on their progress. They also called on governments to agree as soon as possible on measures to secure climate market mechanisms for after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires.

But don’t presume that global warming is necessarily seen as a threat to businesses. On the contrary, many view the problem as an enormous opportunity for innovation, profits, as well as saving the planet and its people. So noted the executive director of the UN Environment Program, Achim Steiner:

"In terms of global warming and climate change, the key to rapid progress is in part premised upon getting markets and, by implication, businesses to become not skeptics and doubters and therefore brakes on progress, but rather catalysts, innovators and multipliers for a transition to a more energy efficient economy.”

Companies aren’t about to go gangbusters on energy innovation and carbon-cutting technology without some stable rules and policies, however. Mindy S. Lubber is the president of Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups that work with companies to address issues like global warming. She explained on WorldChanging.com:

“…investors tend to weight their equity portfolios towards companies focused on succeeding in stable and predictable markets, not on those gambling on doubtful, uncertain regulatory landscapes. The current lack of a coherent, comprehensive U.S. strategy for addressing climate change is hindering the ability of American businesses to invest and innovate…And that means we need – some businesses will argue, they crave – a national climate change policy with specific, mandatory limits on carbon emissions.”

Many companies around the globe have begun to tackle global warming but can and want to do more. Although each of us can screw in a CFL bulb or drive a fuel-efficient car, we will see the swiftest action on global warming when government sets the rules of the CO2 market and businesses - and their consumers - fully take advantage of those opportunities.

CSR Wire
Voice of America
WorldChanging.com

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

Canada’s province of British Columbia could be energy independent within 18 years and do it without relying on any domestic fossil fuels use.

A report from the GLOBE Foundation examined the feasibility of making Canada’s most western province completely energy self-sufficient. Dubbed “The Endless Energy Project,” it determined that not only can British Columbia (BC) be energy independent, but that it could be done "without undo social or economic hardship" and bring0 global warming emissions down to below the levels they were at in the year 2000. From the Executive Summary:

“The Endless Energy project has evaluated the rising price of conventional energy, energy security concerns, the threat of climate change and many other trends and combined them to show that moving from 40 percent renewable supply in year 2000 to 100 percent renewable supply in 2025 is not only possible, but entirely reasonable and desirable.

Importantly, the scenario described implies little disruption in way people live and the way businesses operate. However, it does imply a major expansion in economic growth as a result of: increased energy and technology exports, major investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and replacement of petroleum imports with indigenous bio-fuels and electricity.”

BC would need to develop its renewable energy sources on a massive scale, with hydropower being the backbone of the energy supply. Wind, solar, geothermal, and other sources would also be ramped up. Small scale renewable energy – such as solar systems on individual buildings – could provide up to 14 percent of the total energy needs of homes and businesses. The report also recommended that BC’s urban and rural areas explore district energy systems, in which a group of buildings or a small community gets is electricity and heat from a central source.

This could provide a helpful model for other provines in Canada who want to follow suit and to the States. However, hydropower has had its share of environmental justice problems in Canada, notably in Manitoba and Quebec. If BC does expand its hydropower, I hope it does so in respectful collaboration with the First Nations there.

The Endless Energy Project full report
Renewable Energy Access