This week a senior U.S. environment official met with Chinese representatives in Beijing to discuss cooperation between the two nations in the fight against global warming.

China and the U.S. are the two largest emitters of global warming pollution, with China recently surpassing the U.S. as the world leader in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – a major contributor to global warming.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, praised China’s “very aggressive measures in recognition of challenges of reducing air pollution.”

Last December, the Asian nation announced it would emit at a slower rate than previously planned, cutting pollution per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010. As their impressive economy continues to grow, so too will their pollution.

Connaughton also discussed President George W. Bush’s proposals to cut climate change emissions with the Chinese, noting "It is an exciting time in the relations between China and the United States in the areas of environmental quality and economic prosperity."

While the U.S. is facing pressure from the rest of the world to make real, measurable cuts in emissions, it’s admittedly smart politics to align itself with a rapidly growing nation that is also slow to commit to real emissions reductions. A strong political and economic partnership means more muscle to negotiate at the global climate change meetings President Bush has planned for the end of September, as well as the continued negotiations beyond the expiration the Kyoto Protocol’s first phase in 2012.

While China has shown progress in emissions reductions - stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards than the U.S., for example - I’m still cautious about a U.S.-China partnership to tackle climate change, especially while the Bush administration running the show. A partnership that involves real cuts in emissions, strengthens a global clean energy economy, and facilitates the exchange of cutting-edge technology is the only way these two nations can show real leadership in a cleantech era.

China View
World Watch

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

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 

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 study shows that renewable energy could save the world $180 billion dollars each year in fuel costs and cut emissions in half by 2050.

The European Renewable Energy Council teamed up with Greenpeace International to examine how much the planet would save in terms of energy and money by investing heavily in renewable energy. And by heavily, I mean taking all of the $250 billion of subsidies currently given to the coal and gas industries and switching to investments and policies that focus on renewable sources. That also means an extra global investment of $22 billion in clean, renewable power plants. But by changing direction, the global clean energy market could be worth an annual $288 billion by 2030, up from $50 billion in 2006, and we would drastically cut our global warming emissions.

Businesses and governments would see the cost savings by investing in resources like wind, solar, and geothermal power, as well as biofuels.

The report is the financial argument for Greenpeace’s "Energy Revolution" plan for how to cut the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50 percent by 2050, while maintaining global economic growth.

Bloomberg, via the Financial Express
Environment News Service
The Sietch Blog

A group of 13 Canadian companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have launched a pilot program in British Columbia (BC) to help the 370,000 small and medium-sized businesses there cut their global warming pollution.

Ecotrust Canada, the Pembina Institute, the David Suzuki Foundation, and corporate partners have developed the Carbon Neutral Workgroup for Small Business, which will help companies calculate their global warming emissions and identify efficient means of reducing those emissions. Even better, the group wants to create free software for small and medium-sized business to show them how to cut their carbon footprints. The Pembina Institute, an NGO that provides education and consulting on clean energy issues, will offer one-on-one technical assistance.

The Workgroup points out that small businesses are responsible for about 30 percent of BC’s gross domestic product (GDP), making it a significant market in which to cut climate change emissions. Ian Gill, President of Ecotrust Canada, explained:

“It’s part of a growing ‘conservation economy’ driven by the dramatic change in consumer and corporate attitudes toward the environment as a result of global warming.” But no one is “talking or thinking about how” to help small businesses.

Small business owners will also learn about the emerging carbon offsets market, thereby giving them more tools with which to reinvest money into climate change projects in their local communities and offset their emissions.

Businesses involved in the Workgroup so far include an architecture firm, a bus company, fisheries, and a flooring and upholstery service.

EcoTrust Canada
The Vancouver Province

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

Gamesa, a Spanish wind turbine manufacturer, has hammered out its first-ever U.S. union contract with the United Steelworkers (USW). Workers at two Gamesa facilities in Pennsylvania voted to approve their first contract with 80 percent in favor of it. The agreement lays the foundation for a stronger partnership between one of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers – and the only one that makes its blades, nacelles, and towers all in the U.S. – and the 850,000 member union.

The three-year contract raises worker salaries by more than 10 percent, as well as provides for bonuses and benefits for roughly 600 employees. Michael Peck, a Gamesa spokesman, called the contract “a world-class agreement." Tom Conway, USW international vice president, agreed:

“Our union is proud to partner with Gamesa to further grow their domestic manufacturing base and promote wind energy as a source of clean, renewable energy and good jobs.”

Gamesa and other wind power companies have been lured to Pennsylvania by a host of tax incentives and the adoption of a Renewable Energy Standard that doubled the state's renewable energy use to 20 percent. PA is one of the top green power purchasers in the nation according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The United Steelworkers have been longtime supporters of wind power; they and the Sierra Club founded the Blue Green Alliance that advocates for a cleaner environment and good jobs. USW also co-founded the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, business, and environmental organizations supporting clean energy and a strong economy.

Bucks County Courier Times
Gamesa Corporation
Philadelphia Inquirer, via Topix
Renewable Energy Access
United Steelworkers
The Green Options Interview: Van Jones

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