When the National Association of Governors met last weekend in Traverse City, MI, global warming policy was on the agenda. In the absence of a federal commitment to renewable energy or cutting global warming emissions, they stressed the importance of states to keep leading the way.

The Chairman of the governors association, Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), began his one-year term this week. He noted that the Republican Party has some “catching up to do” on global warming policy, although he pointed out that some of the most outspoken governors on the issue are Republicans, like Governor Schwarzenegger of California and Governor Crist of Florida. Pawlenty told the Associated Press that states should redouble their efforts to limit climate change emissions and develop renewable sources of energy: "The false premise of some of the critics is that you’ll wreck the economy. I suggest if you do this correctly, it will be a boost to the economy."

Several governors pointed out that the federal government will eventually follow if enough states take the lead and prove the clean energy technologies increase energy security, create jobs, and slow global warming. Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) explained “With the states taking action, even if you don’t have 100 percent of America, you can have 40 or 50 percent or more, and that’s a good start. We can’t just wait around for the federal government."

Several governors were more cautious in their assessment of how global warming policy would play out in their state’s economy. Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI, home to automakers that are battling congressional efforts to toughen fuel efficiency) said success would only come when all nations, like China, are committed to the same goals and are playing by the same rules. Governor Joe Manchin III (D-WV) said that the U.S. couldn’t afford to stop using his state’s coal, even though it’s a leading source of global warming emissions.

Associated Press, via International Herald Tribune
Forbes

According to the American Wind Energy Association, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recently told wind power supporters that a House vote on a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) was likely to happen the week of July 30.

A renewable portfolio standard – also called a renewable energy standard – is a measure requiring utilities to get a certain amount of their power from renewable sources by a particular time.

Last month in the Senate, Senator Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) RPS amendment to the energy bill was killed before a vote could be held. Although the current House version of the energy bill does not have an RPS provision, Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA) are expected to offer an amendment requiring utilities to get 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020. This amendment is based on H.R. 969, which calls for an RPS and is also authored by Udall and Platts. (Make sure your Representative is one of the 120 co-sponsors here).

In her meeting with wind power supporters, Pelosi underscored the critical role an RPS would play in moving the nation towards global warming solutions.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a 20 percent by 2020 RPS would save consumers nearly $11 billion on energy bills by 2030 and save nearly 2 billion short tons of coal from being burned up into the atmosphere. Similarly, the American Solar Energy Society found that an RPS could help create nearly 40 million new jobs in the U.S. by 2030 in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors.

It’s Getting Hot in Here
Union of Concerned Scientists
Wind Energy Weekly

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

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

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

Late last week in a vote of 65-27, the Senate passed an energy bill that made progress in some areas but was stripped down in others.

The crown jewel was certainly a near-40 percent increase in fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles by 2020. For the first time, SUVs, vans, and small trucks fall under the same regulations as passenger cars. Each vehicle group must achieve a 10 miles per gallon (mpg) increase in fuel efficiency by the target year, with an overall average requirement for the manufacturer’s fleet increasing from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. The current requirement has not changed in nearly 20 years.

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) fought the standards and wanted to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel requirement. But he admitted that one reason for his effort’s failure was the growing concern over global warming. From the Associated Press:

“‘The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming,’ Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is ‘a juicy target.’”

Although an improvement in fuel efficiency is a long-overdue step forward, some perspective is required. Watthead over at Cleanergy.org points out the 35 mpg standards by 2020 is about where China and Japan are today, where the European Union was five years ago, and where states that adopt California’s tailpipe standards will be in five years.

Other achievements in the energy bill include:

• A 36 billion gallon by 2022 renewable fuels standard, including the specification that at least 60 percent of the requirement must be met by “next generation” biofuels like cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is not made from corn but rather other plant materials like switchgrass.

• New appliance and lighting efficiency standards, as well as a requirement that the federal government accelerate the use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

• The development of an action plan (but not a requirement) to cut oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day by 2017. That’s roughly the same as the total current imports of oil from the Middle East. The Office of Management and Budget is responsible for the plan.

Here’s what didn’t make it in the energy bill:

• No support for coal-to-liquids synthetic fuel production and no support for expanded coal, nuclear, or oil use. So although some key pieces of progressive clean energy legislation were left out, at least we’re (so far) not expanding more of our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

• No package that would have extended production tax credits and other financial incentives and offsets for renewable energy. The $32 billion package, previously approved 15-5 by the Senate Finance Committee, also included a repeal of tax credits for major gas and oil companies' domestic manufacturing activities.

• No national renewable energy standard that would have required 15 percent of our energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2020.

The Senate energy bill now awaits action in the House. The House Ways and Means Committee passed a tax provision last week that includes support for wind and biodiesel. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Representative Edward Mackey (D-MA) have both agreed that gasoline use must be more efficient and plan to work to ensure that the House’s action mirrors the Senate’s.

Associated Press, via CIO Today
BioCycle
Cleanergy.org
Sioux Falls Argus Leader

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

Negotiations leading up to the Group of Eight (G-8) summit that begins in Heiligendamm, Germany on Wednesday stalled when the U.S. bluntly objected to the host country’s global warming declaration.

Germany’s proposal calls for limiting the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. But Bush administration officials rejected those mandatory emissions targets, as well as calls to raise energy efficiencies 20 percent by 2020. They also opposed a statement that reads, “We acknowledge that the U.N. climate process is an appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change."

So late last week, President Bush went on the offensive and proposed his own climate change goal. He urged 15 major nations – including China and India – to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases. Rather than a specific goal like Germany’s 3.6 degrees reduction, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global goal and then each nation then would decide how to reach that goal. At the same time, the White House specifically registered its opposition to a global cap-and-trade program.

Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed Bush’s “new determination” to fight climate change, any goal must absolutely be part of a U.N. framework. Furthermore, she said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that her proposals for a 3.6 degrees cut in emissions “are non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.”

The talks promise to heat up even more during the summit, given the U.S.’s hard line and Merkel’s apparent refusal to compromise the central tenant of her plan. According to Der Spiegel, which obtained minutes of a secret meeting to plan Germany’s climate change strategy at the summit:

“Merkel refuses to allow her image as a vocal advocate of climate protection to be diminished, not even by George W. Bush. According to the minutes, Merkel insisted that her government take a tough stance and not budge a millimeter at preparatory meetings at the expert level.

…There is a lot at stake for the chancellor: her reputation as G-8 chair as well as Germany's image in the world, but also Merkel's image as a politician who gets things done.

 

…Publicly, the looming conflict with the Americans is in no way to be ratcheted up — softening is the order the day. ‘The federal chancellor asks that over the next few weeks, expectations regarding the subject of climate protection and energy efficiency be played down in public,’ reads one sentence in the minutes of Merkel's pre-summit meeting.”

But Merkel seems as determined to get a concrete compromise as much as Bush is determined to soften it. The Chancellor has a lot riding on this summit, both for her own image and the health of the planet. Her advisors have told her that “reaching a concrete CO2 reduction goal is the decisive yardstick” in measuring the success of the summit. Furthermore, the German public expects a success regarding climate protection at the summit…which made me wonder how much different U.S. policies would be if we were all just as loud in our demands for success.

CNN
Der Spiegel
Washington Post

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on H.R. 2337, The Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act. The bill, according to the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, promotes alternative energy and efficiency, including a green building program that would require all major new facility construction projects funded in whole or in part through the Department of the Interior, National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or the Forest Service to meet or exceed silver level LEED standards.

But a provision in the bill has other clean energy supporters up in arms.

Subtitle D, called the Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act, would require new hoops and hurdles for wind power production. The American Wind Energy Association says the law would “effectively shut down the wind energy production industry in the United States,” and House members of both political parties questioned why the wind industry should face new requirements that have never applied to other energy sectors. Some of those requirements include:

• Directing the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to review every existing and planned wind project and penalize operation of wind energy facilities not formally certified by USFWS.
• Landowners and farmers with wind turbines on their property would be subject to inspection requirements at any time.
• Landowners and farmers could face one year in jail or a $50,000 penalty for constructing or operating an uncertified wind turbine, regardless of whether it is for personal or commercial use.

In response to the Global Warming Wildlife Surivial Act, the wind industry points out that it is working with wildlife advocates, government officials, and scientists on a Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee to examine a national strategy for siting turbines. These stakeholders should decide how best to protect wildlife and support the growth of clean wind power, AWEA says, not Washington bureaucrats.

A report released by the National Academy of Sciences earlier this month concluded that wind turbines cause about .003 percent of human-caused bird mortality. That’s about one thousand times lower than bird deaths from house cats. Previous studies have come to similar conclusions. The report also points out that the locations of wind farms must be sited carefully to minimize the negative impacts on birds and that each wind project should be considered on its own merits. The Audubon Society’s Director of Conservation Policy, Mike Daulton, testified before Congress on May 1 that turbine siting must be done cautiously to minimize the impact on wildlife, but did not discount wind power entirely:

“As the threats of global warming loom ever larger, alternative energy sources like wind power are essential. Many new wind power projects will need to be constructed across the country as part of any serious nationwide effort to address global warming…Audubon strongly supports wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Each individual wind project, however, has a unique set of circumstances and should be evaluated on its own merits.”

Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced H.R. 2337. West Virginia is the second largest supplier of our nation’s coal.

Further action is scheduled for June.

Alliance to Save Energy
American Wind Energy Assocation
Audubon Society
United Press International
West Virginia Coal Association

Earlier this spring, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Although it has no legislative-making power, it can study and make recommendations on the problem. This week it took on an American icon: the Smithsonian Institution.

The Committee is investigating allegations by former associate director of the National Museum of Natural History, Robert Sullivan, that Smithsonian officials toned down a climate change exhibit to avoid angering some members of Congress and the Bush administration.

Sullivan charges that the exhibit’s text was rewritten to make the connection between climate change and human activity more uncertain. The Smithsonian has denied the allegations, pointing out that Sullivan “was neither a scientists nor a curator.” Other scientists and curators have said that nothing major was omitted, although some admitted to political sensitivities. John Calder, a lead climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration told the Associated Press:

"I remember them telling me there was an attempt to make sure there was nothing in there that would be upsetting to any politicians. They're not stupid. They don't want to upset the people who pay them."

The Natural Resources Defense Council had considered co-sponsoring the climate change exhibit but objected to the exhibit's text about uncertainties on the future warming of the planet.

Associated Press, via Examiner.com