Findings from a new report examining insurance companies’ responses to climate change were released at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors last week. The study found that an increasing number of companies are implementing initiatives to reduce the risk of climate change’s impacts and reduce the emissions that cause the problem.

"From Risk to Opportunity 2007: Insurer Responses to Climate Change" was commissioned by Ceres, a U.S. group of investors and clean energy supporters that also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which manages more than $4 trillion in assets. Mindy S. Lubber, President of Ceres, explained the report’s findings:

Insurers are beginning to respond to global warming – and not just by withdrawing from coastal markets with high financial exposure. We’re seeing a rapid proliferation of products that will reduce climate-related financial losses, as well as the pollution causing global warming. Yet, insurer responses to date are not nearly sufficient given the scale of the challenge. We need more insurers, especially U.S. insurers, to step up.

Indeed, Europe’s largest insurer, Allianz, said that climate change may increase insured losses from extreme events in an average year by 37 percent within a decade. Karolinska medical university in Sweden predicts cardiovascular health problems to rise along with global temperatures.

Some specific initiatives offered by companies around the globe include:

• Green building credits
• Drought protection
• Incentives for investing in renewable energy (London-based Willis Holdings will cover potential underproduction of wind power)
• Clean transportation (The Japanese company Sompo gives premium discounts to policyholders who drive low-emitting cars)

All in all, the report found 422 examples from 190 insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and insurance organizations from 26 nations. That’s more than double the number of products found in a similar report barely over a year ago. I was surprised to learn that forty percent of the initiatives are from U.S. companies, although not surprisingly only a small minority of companies overall are exploring how climate change may affect business or are offering products to mitigate it.

With billions of dollars lost this year from unprecedented flooding and windstorms in Europe and wildfires in the U.S., some are nervous that climate change threatens the entire industry’s long-term viability. While the products from a handful of companies certainly won’t slow the consequences on their own, they must multiply to be part of the global solution that includes private sector involvement, government leadership, and consumer response.

Former President Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative has been all over the news lately, working with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and big business to move the ball forward with clean energy solutions to global warming. Whatever you think of the guy, it’s hard to deny that his partnerships are impressive and the results could be revolutionary.

Besides the agreement by utilities to invest in energy efficiency, and besides Florida Power & Light’s major new commitment to solar energy, the Clinton Global Initiative is also partnering with the Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUUCCCE) on efficiency efforts in China.

The China Lighting Conversion program will distribute 10 million free energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) to customers. CFLs use one-third the energy of traditional bulbs, but are still cost-prohibitive to many Chinese. According to JUUCCCE, the CFLs would save about 3.7 million tons of CO2 over 4 ½ years — enough to avoid having to build one typical U.S.-size coal plant. While I tell myself it’s encouraging to see the start of another clean energy commitment in China, I’m still disheartened by the multiple coal plants they’re building each week. But change has to start somewhere.

The other JUUCCCE program is the Energy Efficient Urban Design Tools for Mayors. This is an interactive, multimedia curriculum to train hundreds of Chinese mayors on technology and best practices that can make their cities more energy efficient. Mayors will learn about green building programs, for example, and will connect with vendors, service providers and financial advisors to help them implement what they learn. The key with this program will be rigorous follow-up and support to ensure that the information learned isn’t forgotten or lost in the bureaucracy one the mayor returns to the city.

The first phase will begin with the CFL program in April 2008, with the training for mayors to start in October of next year.

Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy

Two large U.S. corporations have announced commitments to solar power.

Costco – the giant discount retailer – is installing its first solar array on the Kailua-Kona store in Hawaii. A 680-kilowatt solar electric system – big enough to power about 111 Hawaiian homes – will be installed by REC Solar of San Luis Obispo, CA. It’s expected to be completed in the next five or six weeks.

The Kailua-Kona store may save up to a one-third of its electricity costs by producing its own energy from the sun. Costco has more solar planned for other stores, mostly in Hawaii and in California.

A Safeway store in Dublin, CA has started generating electricity from its own solar panels, and the company plans to install systems on 23 of its stores – enough to power about 20 percent of a stores’ average energy use. That’s enough to avoid over 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) – a major contributor to global warming.

Efficiency is another part of Safeway’s plan: Since 2005, super-efficient refrigeration systems and LED lights have been installed that have allowed the company’s stores to do the same amount of work using less energy.

Companies may be scrambling to expand their green credentials, but they’re also moving forward because of ample incentives from the states. In Hawaii, commercial photovoltaic systems are eligible for credits of up to $500,000 and net metering laws are in place that allow companies to offset electric bills with surplus power put back on the electric grid. Additionally, the federal government offers a 30 percent tax credit.

Local, state, and national incentives for renewable energy will continue to drive business to do the right thing by making it economically sensible to do so. That, combined with a better brand reputation among consumers and investors, may drive even more companies to choose greener options.

GreenBiz.com
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Also on GO:

Google Flips The Switch On Largest Corporate Solar Installation In U.S.

Wal-Mart Launching Solar Power Pilot Program

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

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

Oregon’s legislative session went out with a bang. Building on the renewagble energy standard passed earlier this summer that requires 25 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2025, this week Governor Ted Kulongoski signed key solar power policies that will continue to encourage solar manufacturing and solar energy systems in the state.

For starters, the tax credit for solar power projects jumped from 35 percent of project costs to 50 percent. A tax exemption passed for solar net metered systems, and a provision requiring public buildings to set aside 1.5 percent of their construction budget to fund onsite solar power technologies also made it through.

Jon Miller, executive director of the Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association, explained why solar power is good for Oregon:

It's another example of how we're growing manufacturing in the northwest. We're now a powerhouse in the United States in solar manufacturing. Oregon's established and educated semiconductor workforce makes it a natural fit for the solar PV industry.

Solar business is booming in Oregon. Indeed, two manufacturers (Germany-based SolarWorld AG and California-based Solaicx) have already committed to the state, and overall the solar industry is growing more than 30 percent annually. Oregon ranks 5th in the U.S. for solar hot water systems and in the top 10 for photovoltaic (PV) systems. By 2009, Oregon is expected to be the largest producer of PV cells in the U.S.

Renewable Energy Access

Last week, the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee passed the Green Jobs Act of 2007 (HR 2847) by a vote of 26-18. Originally introduced by Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis (D-CA) and John Tierney (D-MA), the Green Jobs Act would authorize up to $125 million in funding to establish national and state job training programs for about 35,000 U.S. workers. These jobs training would help to address the shortages in green industries such as solar panel installation, building weatherization, and wind turbine maintenance.

Congresswoman Solis explained why the bill is important:

"… I know that we can achieve the goals of becoming energy independent and reducing our global warming emissions. But the strength of our nation’s economy depends on the availability of a highly skilled and well-trained work force. This legislation is an opportunity to advance not only the energy security of our nation, but also the economic security of our families.”

During committee deliberation, Democrats defeated a Republican amendment to include coal-to-liquid technologies. Fuel from liquid coal produces more than double the amount of global warming pollution as petroleum-based fuels and doesn't help to solve the climate change problem.

The Green Jobs Act is part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Energy Independence Day” plan. Other parts of the plan include bills that would set new energy-efficiency standards for home appliances, require more efficient lighting, promote green buildings in the public and private sectors, provide long-term incentives for companies to invest in renewable energy, and spend $3.5 billion over five years to improve how the U.S. grows and produces biofuels.

Congresswoman Solis
Gristmill, via Topix
Tri-Valley Herald
Washington Post
The Green Options Interview: Van Jones

Although California ranks second in total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming, the U.S.’s most populous state is also one of the lowest emitters on a per-capita basis.

That’s right; the average Californian emits fewer CO2 emissions than people in all other states except Idaho, Vermont, and Rhode Island. According an Associated Press analysis of 2003 data (the latest U.S. Department of Energy numbers available), Californians are responsible for about 24,000 pounds of CO2 per person per year. In comparison, Wyoming emits 276,000 pounds per capita annually.

True, California has less heavy industry that many other states, and mild weather means residents aren’t blasting the heat or air conditioning as often as others. But although Californians drive just as far, live in homes just as big, and have just as many gadgets, the analysis found that policies put in place in the last 30 years have made the Golden State more efficient than almost any other.

Since the oil embargo of the 1970s, lawmakers have barred utilities from buying power from highly polluting plants, required more renewable energy, and have enacted energy-efficiency standards for new homes and buildings. The state has considered banning traditional incandescent light bulbs and creating fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, although the latter idea has been tied up in the courts. Last year, California became the first to require a statewide cap on climate change emissions, cutting them 25 percent by 2020.

Claudia Chandler, assistant director of the California Energy Commission, told the AP that these energy efficiency measures have eliminated the need to build 20 large power plants. Other estimates have shown that the average California family spends about $800 a year less on energy than it would have without these efficiency improvements.

Associated Press, via the Daily Breeze
Washington Post

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

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) launched an initiative in April to make the Capitol complex carbon neutral within two years.

To achieve this, the “Green the Capitol” initiative includes changing out 17,000 old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs for more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs and using eco-friendly vendors for furnishings.

But the big elephant in the room (and I’m not talking about a Republican) is what to do about the electricity source of the Capitol: a coal plant.

The Capitol Power Plant burns mostly coal and natural gas, along with some oil for heating and cooling. So to make the Capitol carbon neutral, something has to be done about the coal being burned practically next door (coal makes up 49 percent of the plant's output). But Speaker Pelosi was vague and noncommittal about action to clean up the plant:

"The recommendations that the people who know about this will put forth is what we will act upon, and there are issues involved with the power plant that we have to learn more about."

Complicating the matter are lawmakers from coal producing states, like Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who are major defenders of coal and blocked an effort in 2000 to eliminate it from the Capitol Power Plant. CNN reports that two West Virginia companies – International Resources Inc and the Kanawha Eagle mine - provide 40,000 net tons of coal to the plant, earning $4.6 million. According to campaign records, the companies gave a combined $26,300 to Byrd and McConnell’s campaigns in the 2006 election cycle.

If the Capitol Power Plant remains unchanged, the Capitol would have to spend $850,000 to buy carbon credits for its 340,000 tons of global warming emissions. Switching the plant over to natural gas would cost between $5 million and $8 million more each year, but a draft report obtained by CNN says that the cost could be absorbed by the savings gained from not paying to dispose of the fly ash.

The chief administrative officer of the House will submit a final report on the carbon neutral initiatives by June 30th.

Lawmakers have some big hurdles to clear if the Capitol is to be carbon neutral. But if they can’t get our own Capitol cleaned up, how can we trust them to lead the entire country towards a clean, 21st century energy system?

CNN
Washington Times