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.

Genesys Conferencing is global provider of web, audio, and video conferencing services. It does business in 25 countries, including with nearly half of the Fortune Global 500 companies. Genesys has also made a strong commitment to energy efficiency and to cutting its global warming emissions. Last month, it appointed a Green Officer to drive and manage a sustainable development strategy and implement the ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems Standard.

So I spoke with Genesys’ Executive Vice President of Global Marketing, Denise Persson, on May 30th.

Green Options: Why is Genesys Conferencing focusing so many resources on efficiency?

Denise Persson: It all started about five years ago. As a European company, we are more environmentally conscious. I’m Swedish, and in Sweden we recycle every single thing. We would never dream of throwing a piece of paper in the trash. So this direction for the company was very natural for a lot of us. We wanted to do all that we could to make it more efficient and more responsible in terms of climate change.

GO: Tell me more about this global certification program and how Genesys is involved.

DP: The Environmental Management Systems is a certification process that we are working towards for all of our European, North American, and Asian-Pacific offices. We are focusing on energy savings and waste reduction, like computers that turn off automatically, recycling programs, and efficient lighting. We even make sure our cleaning company recycles.

GO: Does Genesys participate in any green power programs?

DP: No we do not – we don’t own our building. However we make sure that we are as efficient as possible in other areas.

GO: Let’s face it, energy efficiency isn’t sexy – how did you sell this initiative to your shareholders or management?

DP: It’s really amazing; we didn’t have to “sell” anything. We are seeing more and more RFPs [requests for proposals] from customers that ask about environmental management plans. In fact, our customers are hearing questions about efficiency from their customers. So we want to implement even more telecommuting options so our customers can reduce their carbon footprints. It’s a very bottom-up initiative and a reason we went for the Environmental Management Systems certification.

GO: What other energy-related measures is Genesys working on?

DP: So far we’ve developed a cost calculator on our website that includes the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions customers save by using our web conferencing services instead of flying to meeting locations. Our customers love that tool.

We’re also doing a lot of surveys of customers' needs. Our next major step is certification by the end of this year, and we also want to educate more of our customers. We want to help them figure out how to implement even more telecommuting practices that cut down on pollution, time, and cost.

I’m so excited about these initiatives. I’m very proud of my organization because we’re doing everything we can on this issue. It’s wonderful to be able to combine something that’s important to me with my job. It’s so important to work for a global company that takes this [climate change] problem seriously.

Genesys Conferencing
ISO 14000/14001 Environmental Management Guide
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

Erik Blachford is the new CEO of TerraPass, a carbon offset company. When a consumer buys a carbon offset to offset the emissions from their driving, a trip, or even a wedding, TerraPass uses that money to fund renewable energy products.

Erik has never been a full-time environmentalist, although he is member of a few national organizations. In a former life he was the CEO of Expedia, although he left the company before its partnership with TerraPass was established. Erik is excited about the new venture, explaining on a recent blog post,

“Back in Internet pre-history, at the dawn of online travel, nobody knew you could even check airline ticket prices online, much less book tickets. Now almost half of all travel is booked online. I think we’re at the beginning of another explosion in consumer awareness, this time in the voluntary carbon markets.”

I spoke with Erik by phone on May 25th.

Green Options: How do you respond to carbon offset skeptics? For example, the argument that offsets are just an easy way for people to pay off their pollution without much sacrifice.

Erik Blachford: I hear that argument a lot, but it’s not accurate as to what TerraPass does. People who buy carbon offsets aren’t just sitting back afterwards and thinking they’ve done their duty. These people are active in other ways, too: they’re very in tuned to the problem and the other solutions. Furthermore, carbon offsets are a voluntary enterprise; no one is forcing someone to buy carbon offsets.

However, there is also a lot of talk about common umbrella standards for carbon offsets, and I think TerraPass and our customers would be better served with them. Our industry needs consumer protection standards. Right now it’s unregulated, and the consumer has to be very cautious. Consumers are taking the initiative and doing the research on which carbon offset programs are legitimate, but they shouldn’t be expected to do all of the work.

GO: What makes TerraPass different from other carbon offset companies?

EB: Terra Pass focuses on helping the individual consumer reduce emissions, rather than only large corporations. We want to help individuals take action to reduce their carbon footprint. We’re also very accessible. The company has a blog where we can communicate with customers and get their feedback and ideas.

GO: You support a number of different renewable energy and efficiency projects. Why did TerraPass get involved in biomass? You don’t see that as a carbon offset very often.

EB: It’s great to be able to work with biomass providers. Energy from biomass is produced by capturing methane from sources like cow manure and burning it. We’ve set up contracts with them, buy credits and register them on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). We are very careful to ensure that our carbon offsets are not counted twice.

GO: I don’t see tree planting – a very popular offset – as a TerraPass option. Why not?

EB: Trees plantings are popular offsets because they’re intuitively appealing. But the science doesn’t hold up enough for us to sell them. Some science is based on the average age of a tree being 80-100 years, but that’s just not always the case. And when the tree dies and rots, that carbon dioxide goes back into the atmosphere. There are some carbon offset programs that focus on the conservation of forests rather than tree planting, and that’s an interesting avenue that TerraPass may explore in the future.

GO: What percentage of carbon offset costs goes to the projects?

EB: We don’t break that out, because we don’t think offsets are commodity products, which is what that kind of breakout would imply. We are more focused on our pricing to consumers, which is competitive though not rock bottom, because it reflects the work we put into researching our projects thoroughly and sticking to principles like matched maturity of credits. We could probably sell offsets for a lower price if we we’re willing to sell credits from previous or future years, to buy blind on the CCX, or to buy forestry projects, but we have decided not to do any of those.

GO: How do you assure customers that their money is making a real difference?

EB: We make sure that the customer knows what we’re doing. We publish a verification report each year and we use three protocols to verify our credits: Green-e certifies our wind power projects, SES certifies our biomass, and First Environment certifies our landfill gas projects.

GO: What are some challenges and advantages of the U.S. carbon market?

EB: The U.S. didn’t sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, so one challenge is that the idea of carbon offsets is still fairly new here. There’s a general awareness of the issue, but carbon offsets still feel more exotic to people than they really are. It’s just a lack of awareness that we need to work on.

However, an advantage is that the American consumer is generally very open to new ideas and is very action-oriented. They want to take responsibility and do something, so the mindset of the consumer is right for a carbon offset market.

GO: TerraPass is well-known for its relationship with Expedia. How do you see that relationship evolving?

EB: We’ve got a great relationship with Expedia. It gets our brand out there and we look forward to continuing our relationship.

GO: I’ve got to say, it’s difficult to find the TerraPass option on Expedia’s site. It kind of gets lost in the shuffle of offers for car rentals and zoo passes.

EB: Expedia has many different lists of add-ons for their trips, so TerraPass is lumped with many other options. But we’re really happy to have the brand out there.

GO: If you could partner with any other company or entity, who would it be?

EB: That’s a really good question, but my answer is going to sound really funny. I really want to partner with the federal government. Global warming and emission reductions are a national problem. We need federal action and federal standards to solve it.

Image source: Zimbio

Courtesy of WillSteger.com

Will Steger, famed polar explorer whose feats include the first confirmed dogsled journey to the North Pole without re-supply, the longest unsupported dogsled expedition in history (1,600 mile south-north traverse of Greenland), and the first dogsled traverse of Antarctica, is now on a new mission. He is an eyewitness to the impacts of global warming, both in the Polar Regions and in his home state of Minnesota. A former science teacher, he has set out to educate people on global warming and the solutions needed to slow it. He returned last week from a four-month trek by dogsled across Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic to interview the Inuit people, who have had to adapt quickly to a new lifestyle because of climate change. Steger will use these interviews to produce a documentary later this year.

I spoke with Will by phone on May 15th. He was in Iglulik, Nunavut; the last stop of his expedition.

Green Options: You’ve traveled both Polar Regions extensively and have documented how climate change is drastically changing their landscapes. What was different about this trip?

Will Steger: This was a new route for me because this was a cultural expedition. We specifically planned the route so we could visit as many villages and talk with as many people along the way as possible. We know global warming is happening and we want to put a human face on it. So we spent a lot of time in villages. Our team included myself, three team members, and three 50- or 60-year-old Inuit hunters. We talked with hundreds of people.

Baffin Island, where I traveled, is like ground zero of global warming because there’s an intact culture that relies very heavily on their surroundings to survive. Changes are noticed almost immediately. Up here, global warming is showing itself most drastically out on the sea ice. As the earth warms, 80 percent of that energy goes into the ocean, which then affects the ice cover. The Inuit are seeing the ice freeze six weeks later, along with earlier break ups of the ice. Generally, the Inuit have had about 8 months where they are able to travel on the ice to hunt, and now that’s cut down to 5 or 6 months. That’s a 25 percent reduction in the amount of time they have to hunt out on the ice, which acts like an extension of their land.

GO: Are the Inuit angry? It is industrialized countries’ pollution that has caused this.

WS: Everyone is talking about global warming up here, there’s no denial about it. But the Inuit are forgiving people. Many of them aren’t worried about it because they can’t change it, and they don’t worry about things they can’t change. They understand that the polluters are industrialized nations, but in general they don’t harbor a lot of anger. They wish we would change, but they’re pretty easy going.

But we still have to take responsibility. Our way of consuming energy is really causing this, and we need to change to avoid the worst of the consequences.

GO: You’ve documented the changes up there before; did anything surprise you about this trip?

WS: Let me first say that no single event “proves” global warming. Global warming is an accumulation of changes happening over time. That said, I did see an effect that really surprised me, and everyone up there was talking about it: There is a large sound called Cumberland Sound. It’s about 50 miles wide and 125 miles long, and we were going to cross it on this expedition. But the ice broke up from the swells from a super storm in the North Atlantic. Everyone was talking about that. So we had to go around it, which was an extra 75 miles. That’s not a major hardship for the team, but it is for the Inuit communities because they depend on the sound for commercial fishing. Now it has shattered the fishing industry. It isn't just abou the environment; it’s the fact that it affects the economy and survival of this entire community.

Another impact really struck me. There’s a place up here they call the “land where ice never melts.” Well, it is melting. The glaciers are shrinking. That was incredibly powerful to see.

GO: Seeing all these impacts from climate change, was this trip depressing or invigorating?

WS: Neither. It was reaffirming: We were ground-truthing the science.

You have to understand that this Inuit culture does not think the way we do. Their world is close to the land. They talk in minute details of the changes in the salt in the sea ice, details that aren’t even in the climate change models. You rely on a lot of satellite info up here, but there aren’t a lot of scientists.

GO: How do the Inuit talk about global warming?

WS: Many of the elders will say the earth’s axis has changed because the sun is rising in a different place. But what’s really happening is that, because our warming planet causes more water to be absorbed up into the atmosphere, they are seeing a diffraction of the sun. It’s like an optical illusion caused by global warming. They also say that the sky color has changed: it’s now a whitish blue in the winter rather than a deep blue. In the wintertime up here, the sun doesn’t rise. But now the Inuit say the light is getting brighter in the winter. Again, the water vapor is diffracting the light in the atmosphere, making it seem lighter.

GO: What are your next steps after you return to the States?

WS: We have a lot of film from our expedition up here. We’ll be heading out to Los Angeles to start producing the documentary. In the summer, we’ll be back up to Baffin Island to do more interviews with the elders.

I’m also back on the global warming campaign trail in November, along with Fresh Energy, an energy policy organization with which I partner. We’ll be educating folks on solutions, specifically speaking a lot with congregations in the faith community.

Governor Tim Pawlenty appointed me to sit on Minnesota’s Climate Change Advisory Group. I’m working with about 50 other people from industry, environmental groups, local and tribal governments, transportation, and agriculture to develop a climate change action plan for the state.

I’ll also be working more with high school students, which I’m very excited about. They must feel empowered to fight this. They’re not taking on the challenge yet, but I think it’s going to happen soon, and I want to be part of it. I want to do now what we did 30 years ago during the Vietnam War; create a movement with young people. That’s when we’re going to see real change.

Cross posted at Maria Energia 

Gary Reysa and his wife cut their energy use in half with their self-designed “Half Plan.” A retired airplane product development engineer from Boeing, Gary continues to satisfy his mechanical and creative curiosity with an array of efficiency and renewable energy projects at his home near Bozeman, MT.

I spoke with Gary by phone on April 5th.

Green Options: Why did you decide to cut your energy use in half?

Gary Reysa: I’m very concerned about global warming, and now that that I have a new grandchild, I see the impact it could have on future generations. It’s easy to get the feeling that there’s not much an individual can do, so my wife and I thought: What can we do? Could we make a significant cut in our energy use and global warming emissions? Could we cut it in half?

GO: How did you begin?

GR: The Half Plan seemed really ambitious to us at first. For one thing, we had no access to special technology. But I had begun some projects back around 2000 when we moved into our house and I started keeping track of our energy bills. When we officially began the Half Plan, we decided to do the projects that offered the most energy saving per dollar spent for our climate, house, skills, and habits.

GO: Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to just buy carbon offsets?

GR: I have mixed feelings about carbon offsets. I wouldn’t criticize anyone for doing it, but it’s just not for me. I do believe there are a lot of places in the world where you can spend a few bucks and get carbon reductions. But I feel like some people use them to get out of doing real action.

I feel better about doing something directly that reduces my carbon footprint. But even with the Half Plan, we still have to buy green power from Northwest Energy to make up for what we use. We’re not completely independent of the power grid.

GO: You said you didn’t have access to any special technology for cutting your energy use. Did that affect the execution of your plan?

GR: Not at all – once we started researching it, we found out that almost all the equipment we needed was actually available locally.

We did a lot of different projects to cut our energy in half. We bought a Toyota Prius, installed a solar water heater, energy-efficient light bulbs, better insulation in our attic, sealed up the windows, put our computers on power strips (shutting off the power strips stops the computer from continuing to “sip” electricity, even when it’s supposedly off) and installed dryer venting. And those are just a few of the projects.

GO: Has the Half Plan been very expensive?

GR: So far we’ve spent $8800. The single biggest expense has been the Toyota Prius - but it’s also been the single biggest energy savings and biggest cut to our global warming emissions. It cut our transportation energy use by about 60 percent! We thought we’d be making a sacrifice by buying a smaller car, but it’s been great and we use it for 85 percent of our driving. We do live in the snowy mountains, so we need bigger car with 4-wheel drive part of the time.

I factored in a $4000 cost for the Prius into the overall $8800 cost of the Half Plan, because $4000 is the premium we paid for the hybrid features. We were due to replace our old Outback vehicle anyway (it had 205,000 miles on it), so the decision was whether to buy a conventional or a hybrid car.

Our other big expenses included the solar projects. In fact, I just finished another big solar project, but I haven’t factored that into the cost yet. It's a solar space heating project that uses solar water heating collectors to provide space heating for the house. The collectors are on the south wall of our new garden shed. They heat water in a 500 gallon tank behind the shed which gets pumped to the house.

Solar collectors for space heating

GO: Have the savings outweighed the initial investments?

GR: The savings has been phenomenal. We’ve invested $8800 and I’ve calculated that we’ll save $4600 in energy costs and 20 tons in global warming pollution each year. The cost savings will continue to go up as electricity and fuel prices go up.

One really neat project has been making our computer use more energy efficient. Our two computers and related equipment use about 270 watts of power when turned on. We put all of it on power strips. At night, we hibernate the computers and then turn everything off with the power strip switch. During the day we have the computers set to hibernate if they are inactive for 15 minutes.

This saves a total of 1624 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, 3200 lbs of global warming emissions, and $162 per year! This just knocked me out.

GO: What was the Half Plan’s biggest surprise?

GR: The biggest surprise was that there were no surprises. It was pretty painless except for the money invested into the projects, but we’ve already earned a big chunk of it back in our first year of savings.

It was relatively easy to do these projects, too. We live pretty normally – as in we waste a lot of energy! – but we started paying more attention to how we use our energy. To me, it would be fall-off-the-log-easy for people to do this without sacrificing or paying much. It’s just a lack of focus that keeps it from happening.

GO: Now that you’ve found the Half Plan so easy to do, have you thought about cutting your energy even further?

GR: We plan to cut it in half again. This time we will have to use solar PV panels for our electricity, which has a higher cost and a slower return than our other projects. But I’m not doing this next phase for the financial return; I’m doing it to cut my carbon dioxide pollution that causes global warming.

GO: So the next half may not be so easy?

GR: We did the Half Plan without changing our lifestyle at all. But to cut our energy further, we’re going to have to make changes like drive less or bike more. That’s not a downfall for us, it just requires more work. There will certainly be lifestyle changes this time.

For example, we just got back from Hawaii. I felt guilty for spending 2500 lbs of CO2 to go! But I think if we’re going to get serious about making another 50 percent drop, then we will need to start thinking harder about trips like that.

GO: So how do you entertain yourself out in Big Sky country?

GR: I love the TV show Living with Ed. It's a reality show with Ed Begley Jr and it's about how he lives his green lifestyle with his wife in Studio City, CA. It makes technical sense, it’s very entertaining, and he really cares about the issue and lives his life accordingly.

For a good read, I’d recommend The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook by Godo Stoyke. It gives a long list of projects that people can do to cut their CO2 emissions and save money. It details the equipment needed, cost, return, energy saving, and carbon saving. I like the book so much I bought a second copy for our local library.

GO: Your website is a fantastic resource; very easy-to-understand information, graphs, and calculations. Any specific tips on how folks can get started on the Half Plan?

GR: At my website, Build It Solar, I have a Half Plan for People Who Like Plans and a Half Plan for People Who Don’t Like Plans, so folks can choose what works best for them.

I’m an engineer, and I know that simplicity is everything. When you have trouble with a design, it’s almost always because it’s too complex. For example, I found that the solar thermal designs are really simple and that anyone should be able to build it.

The other thing folks have to realize is that we are the problem. When you get mad about global warming, you have to look at yourself in the mirror. I read stuff on the Internet and I get the feeling that people are pointing fingers but aren’t identifying the problem as themselves. Instead, they want a quick fix or someone else to come along with the technology that will allow us to not have to do anything. And they feel comfortable about the fact that they’re not doing anything.

We’re the ones generating this problem, but that also makes it easy for us to do something about it. We’re in the driver’s seat to make drastic reductions. It’s easy to do. For example, efficiency is something you can implement quickly, and we can get a significant drop in emissions right away and painlessly. If enough people do that, we’ll have really made a difference.

GO: Do you think this can all really make an impact?

GR: My actual CO2 reduction is about 20 tons each year. If 100 million families did the same thing, the energy we would save we be about 25 percent of all of the U.S. CO2 emissions. That's huge! And the best part is that we know this can be done – with no help from new technology or George Bush. We can do this ourselves, right away.

Carbonfund.org is a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the impacts of global warming. They also promote solutions by selling low-cost carbon offsets that individuals, businesses, and organizations can purchase to reduce their carbon footprint.

When a customer buys a carbon offset, Carbonfund.org purchases and then retires the carbon, taking it out of circulation.

Eric Carlson is the Executive Director of Carbonfund.org, and co-founded the company with his wife, Lesley. Eric has more than 15 years of experience in energy efficiency and global warming policy and project work. He was worked for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star program and has advised companies like Gillette, AT&T, and IBM on energy and money saving opportunities. Carbonfund.org’s motto is: “Reduce what you can, offset what you can not.”

I spoke with Eric by phone on March 23rd.

Green Options: There are a lot of companies and organizations out there selling carbon offsets, or Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). What makes Carbonfund.org different?

Eric Carlson: Our distinction is that we’re a nonprofit and that we let our customers decide for which projects their money is used. We also retire the carbon credits that we buy for our customers. Some companies buy them and then trade them, which doesn’t reduce the overall amount of carbon dioxide.

GO: What sorts of choices do your customers have?

EC: We offer three types of projects from which customers can buy RECs: renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation.

GO: By the way, how do you “retire” carbon?

EC: We often just ask that our account with a particular project be closed, so that credits we’ve bought can never be used again.

GO: There’s a lot of discussion around the term “additionality” and carbon offset projects. Can you explain what that is?

EC: If a project would not have happened without someone buying the RECs to support it, then it is considered additional and a meaningful carbon reduction.

GO: How important is additionality to Carbonfund.org?

EC: We absolutely make sure that projects are additional. At the same time, I’m afraid that the controversies around additionality are slowing people down from just doing the right thing and reducing their carbon impact.

When you buy a REC, you are buying the environmental attributes of that electricity. There are so many variables that go into renewable energy projects, like leasing costs, interest rates, etc. RECs are a part of that, and by purchasing credits, you’re telling the market to buy and set up more renewable energy, and that’s additional.

Carbonfund.org cares a lot about additionality, we work on it every day, but we can’t let it get in the way of the prize.

GO: Some carbon offset companies don’t consider reforestation additional, or even a valid carbon offset.

EC: A tree is 100 percent additional. We buy that tree, so it would not have been planted without someone buying it. The Kyoto Procotol allows for reforestation as well, as does the Chicago Climate Exchange and tens of thousands of scientists around the world have endorsed reforestation as a meaningful way to cut CO2 pollution.

GO: Can you explain that a bit more?

EC: Think of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and reforestation all working together, playing distinct roles. Energy efficiency first brings down the demand for energy, then renewable energy ensures that the energy we need is clean and nonpolluting. Finally, reforestation sucks the carbon dioxide that’s already in the air back down and into its roots. It all has to work together.

GO: That’s the best argument for reforestation that I’ve heard yet.

EC: I just perfected that argument, actually.

GO: With so many renewable energy projects going up, how do you make sure yours are additional?

EC: Renewable energy is only 2 percent of our total energy – or, 98 percent of all new electricity generated since 1997 has been nonrenewable. So we can assume that 98 percent of the RECs out there are additional also, because if renewables could have happened without the RECs, we would have more than 2 percent renewables. So most renewable energy can be considered additional.

GO: How many customers does Carbonfund.org have?

EC: Over 22,000 people, plus over 160 companies and nonprofits.

GO: Have you ever been approached by a traditionally unlikely company wanting to buy carbon credits?

EC: Absolutely. We’ve worked with a large trucking company and even a private jet company, for example. These are not your typical “green” companies. They emit a lot of carbon dioxide and so this is a big financial commitment for them. These particular companies also don’t have big advertising budgets to talk about how green they are, so they weren’t just doing it for good PR.

GO: What are the questions people should be ask when looking to offset their carbon emissions?

EC: First, they should make sure that the projects are certified, verified or audited by a third party. At Carbonfund.org, we support Green-e and Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) certified renewable energy projects, our energy efficiency offsets are certified by the Chicago Climate Exchange and ERT. Our reforestation projects and methodologies are audited by ERT (in lieu of a certification standard) and our entire portfolio is audited by ERT to ensure we are offsetting what our supporters are asking us to. Our 2004 audit is up and our combined 2005/06 will be up in the next week.

After making sure the projects are certified, verified or audited, determine the cost per ton of CO2. The Chicago Climate Exchange’s website shows what companies, nonprofits, cities, and the State of New Mexico pay.

After pricing, decide on the project type from which you want to buy the offset, like renewable energy, efficiency, or reforestation.

GO: Speaking of pricing, there’s a lot of talk about why the price of carbon varies so much. Why do different companies charge so differently?

EC: Carbon doesn’t cost a lot and it doesn’t need to be painful. The cost varies according to the type of project. If you want to support solar energy in Seattle, then it’s going to cost you more than a wind farm in Kansas.

At Carbonfund.org, you know exactly what our markup is. Right now, carbon is being sold for $3.50 on the Chicago Climate Exchange. We sell the carbon credits for $5.50, while other companies charge up to $10 or $12 a ton. You’re getting the exact same product but are paying more for it.

GO: So why are some folks paying more for the same carbon credits?

EC: There’s a lack of education out there, and the media is often not clear about how this all works. But I think people are beginning to pay attention and understand it better.

In the end, the real cost of cutting CO2 is less than zero because it’s saving money. For example, you buy an efficient, compact fluorescent light bulb for $5 but you save $40 over its lifetime. So the bulb costs nothing. It is profitable to cut CO2 and we’re going to see more and more individuals and companies taking advantage of that.