Canadian and U.S. officials are respectively discussing impending regulation to cut down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Businesses in both nations are slowly getting the message and working together to prepare for – and perhaps help mold – the change.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives reached an “unprecedented consensus” last week when they officially called for action that included “absolute” emissions cuts. A national strategy is needed, they argue, rather than the patchwork of provincial regulations that have cropped up. Furthermore, they acknowledged that government regulation may be needed to raise fossil fuel costs, drive efficiency measures, and instigate greater cuts.

Being open to regulation and the need to fight global warming also opens the door for the business community to be involved in the policy planning. The Globe and Mail explained that a “key goal” in the group’s declaration is to stop any measure that would hurt the economy or penalize certain sectors.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his administration are still piecing together a national global warming strategy. In addition to government regulation, the business group recognized its customers and consumers for also driving the message that the private sector needs to change for the greener in order to slow global warming.

In the States, large businesses have made similar declarations as the Canadian coalition, and small businesses are also taking the lead. With 26 million small businesses in the U.S., they make up half of the economy and about half of all energy used for commercial and industrial purposes. This means that huge strides could be made in efficiency and emissions cuts if they work together.

A recent example is the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) Energy Stewardship Initiative: About 500 auto dealers have pledged to cut energy use by 10 percent, thereby saving about $193 million and cutting more than a million tons of global warming pollution every year. The National Small Business Association is working with the Energy Star Small Business program and has issued a similar efficiency challenge to its members.

Businesses large and small will be needed to fight global warming, and they’ve begun doing just that. Now, with pressure from voters and the business community, it’s time for Canadian and U.S. policymakers to take decisive steps and implement national policies to curb CO2.

Globe and Mail
CNN

Every year, Gustavus Adolphus College in tiny St. Peter, MN holds a Nobel Conference, authorized by the Nobel Foundation of Stolkhom, Sweden. The conference brings together renowned experts to discuss timely issues, like aging or globalization. This year, it was “Heating Up: The Energy Debate.”

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

The week began and ended with major international climate change conferences. The first was a United Nations meeting, prepping world leaders for the December talks in Bali that will be the first step to determining emissions goals after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The meeting that closed out this week was held by President Bush in Washington. Sixteen nations, the UN, and the European Union were invited.

At the start of the two-day “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told delegates that the U.S. while being a major emitter of global warming pollution, the government is very serious about fighting climate change. In a soundbite gobbled up by the media, she said that global warming, like terrorism, needs the nations of the world to work together to fight it.

Like the meeting earlier in the week, the Washington meeting was billed as a starting point for negotiations beyond Kyoto. But while the U.N. meetings discuss measurable emissions cuts and targets, Bush prefers voluntary measures or “intensity targets,” that call for emission reductions per each unit of economic production.

The problem is that intensity targets don’t mean overall emission cuts, and that makes many at home and abroad suspicious of the real motives behind the Bush meeting.

Besides the expected protestors outside the conference, the delegates inside were wary as well. The EU’s Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa explained:

“We have actually found many, many countries voicing our view that (a) voluntary approach may be useful but will not solve the issue. Voluntary goals so far have not got us to the level of ambition that we need.”

In fact, he went on to say that Europe will insist on a clearer picture of Bush’s emissions plan and how it will interlock with the Bali talks before they agree to any further meetings. Although the U.S.’s participation is welcome, they insist, officials want to ensure that the intentions of the Bali conference aren’t stalled.

Agence France-Presse
CNN
National Post

There have been some major wake-up calls in the fight against global warming, starting with the United Nations scolding the U.S. for not doing enough to mitigate its contributions to the problem.

U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press that it’s "very clear" the U.S. is not on the right track, despite the Bush administration’s recent openness to even discussing the problem and the series of meetings President Bush has scheduled with world leaders.

More U.N. meetings begin today to prepare for the Bali talks in December that will include negotiations of how to proceed after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. On Thursday, President Bush convenes his own two-day meeting with 15 big-emitter nations. Some worry that his smaller, more limited round of negotiations will undercut the Bali discussions.

Our friends across the pond didn’t hear any good news on the climate change front, either. A representative of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the BBC that it’s unlikely the European Union will achieve their goal of keeping global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Martin Parry is the co-chair of the IPCC, the group that has brought us three reports so far this year on the science, impacts, and solutions of climate change. He told the BBC that the chances of humans keeping the average global temperature increase less than 2 degrees C is "quite little."

He went on to explain that the increase of more than 2 degrees will result in major consequences. Water shortages around the globe may occur (especially in areas with melting glaciers that depend on the freeze and thaw for water), heat waves may increase, and crops may be threatened.

Parry believes it is still possible to contain the rise in temperature to less than 3 degrees Celsius, although, as always, our actions have to be swift. In the meantime, world leaders must discuss "very seriously" plans for significant adaptation measures.

Associated Press, via Kansas City Star
BBC
Terra Daily

Here’s an example of a global warming consequence that wasn’t exactly on my radar, and some strange news from our neighbors to the north.

The Canadian navy has traditionally had a good relationship with the garbage on board its ships: the cold Arctic temperatures have kept the mess frozen, allowing refuse and olfactory senses to live harmoniously.

Then came global warming. The increased temperatures have caused quite the stink on Canadian naval ships, so much so that the navy is relaxing regulations and allowing ships to dump the garbage and even raw sewage at sea. A portion of an internal navy memo was reprinted by The Canadian Press:

The changes ‘help alleviate our COs (commanding officers’) concerns (with regard to) accumulated food remnants stored in garbage bags on decks during ever-increasing global warming summers…These food remnants may decay or putrefy and generate an occupational health and safety issue on board ships (that) our COs can ill afford while striving to enforce Canadian sovereignty in our internal Arctic waters."

The orders – part of the more relaxed provisions in the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act – allow for dumping if there are "operational" or safety reasons, or if capacity is exceeded.

These provisions, and the increased number of ships being sent north on sovereignty patrols, have many people arguing that taking the smelly garbage to a port for unloading is the worth the inconvenience, especially when the alternative is dumping it at sea.

However, navy officials say dumping would be worst-case-scenario, and that navy ships are still much more restrictive in their environmental stewardship than the law requires them to be.

The Canadian Press

While voters, businesses, and politicians are calling for carbon regulation, exactly what that regulation would look like is far from decided.

Carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are the two most-cited proposals for cutting carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Supporters argue over which plan would be the most efficient method of cutting emissions while allowing for flexibility in the economy.

A carbon tax is a tax levied on CO2 emissions. Those who favor a carbon tax say it will drive innovations and technologies that allow for the same amount of work to be done with less pollution, and decrease the demand for products that are dirtier and thus more expensive. Critics point out that a tax would have a harsher impact on the poor, while others argue that carbon tax revenues could be used to lower other taxes, like income taxes or payroll taxes.

A carbon tax also makes many elected officials nervous: New taxes, fees, or whatever you want to call them, are rarely popular with voters. One notable supporter of carbon taxes — although he’s not running for office anymore — is Al Gore. He has promoted a carbon tax in addition to implementing a cap-and-trade program.

A cap-and-trade system requires an overall cut in emissions. Companies that cut emissions further than required are issued permits that they can then sell to companies that can’t or won’t cut emissions far enough.

Promoters of cap-and-trade say that the system provides an incentive — rather than a heavy-handed tax approach — to cut emissions because companies can sell the excess permits. It also requires a definitive limit on emissions, while some are afraid that a carbon tax would simply drive companies to pay the fines, pass the increase along to consumers, and keep on polluting. Companies like GE, DuPont, Duke Energy, and Toyota back a cap-and-trade policy, as do many environmental groups and labor unions. Presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama also prefer it.

This fall, Congress could see a slew of measures to cut CO2. Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) are planning to propose a cap-and-trade bill. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) is expected to introduce a carbon tax proposal — not in the hopes of actually passing it, but rather just to show how unpopular such a tax would be.

San Francisco Chronicle
Wall Street Journal, via Environmental Economics

States continue to take the lead in cutting global warming pollution and more may soon follow, spurred by a federal judge’s ruling last week that Vermont can set stricter vehicle emissions standards — stricter than what the federal government requires.

Furthermore, the widespread state action on auto emissions could persuade the government to enact nationwide fuel efficiency laws, rather than leave a patchwork of state regulations for automakers to work around.

The Christian Science Monitor took a look at what’s happening across the U.S., and predicted some ramifications of the Vermont case:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be prompted to grant California a waiver from the Clean Air Act. This would allow California, along with Vermont and the 10 other states with identical laws, to begin enforcing emission requirements for cars sold in their states.

• Six additional states – Arizona, Florida, New Mexico, Utah, Illinois, and Minnesota – may proceed with their own emissions requirements. All together, the 18 states that have vehicle emission laws or that are exploring them make up about half the U.S. auto market.

• Congress may have to reconsider new fuel-efficiency standards it’s currently weighing (which are not as demanding as Vermont’s). Or they could mandate a tougher federal requirement (more of a long-shot, I’d say).

• Federal judges in two similar cases brought by the auto industry in California and Rhode Island could dismiss those cases if they determine the industry has had its day in court and further proceedings would be redundant.

Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense were party to the Vermont lawsuit, and are optimistic that the judge’s ruling will spur other states to action. The auto industry promised to stricter regulations.

The 12 states with emissions laws already on the books could cut up to 100 million tons each year. Overall U.S. emissions from cars and light trucks total about 1.5 billion tons per year.

Christian Science Monitor
Cybercast News Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

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.

Vestas, one of the world’s leading wind energy companies, is leaving Australia, calling the nation’s wind energy market "unviable."

Vestas Australia Wind Technology will close its 2 1/2 year-old turbine blade factory in Portland, Victoria at the end of this year. Consequently, 130 jobs will be lost. The Danish company’s Asia-Pacific senior vice president, Jorn Hammer, was quite forthcoming with his criticism of the Australian government:

"It’s not viable for us to make further investments in the Australian market…we don’t see the market as big enough in Australia to justify the expense…When we committed to build the factory we believed there was support for the wind industry in Australia, and that has not come through to the extent we anticipated.

We have the view that if the government steps up to the plate and puts the necessary security for a long-term market in place we’ll have another look at the market, but I guess we’ll be a little more careful next time…(Not) just believing in what they’ve been telling us, we need to see some hard evidence to justify investment."

Australian officials were upset with the divestment, and some pointed fingers at the Howard administration, which has been criticized in the past for moving too slowly to address climate change and implement solutions.

Vestas apparently made the ultimate decision to end its manufacturing business in Australia when it was told the government would not extend its mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) of 2 percent renewables. A spokeswoman for federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane told the Western Australian that Vestas knew the MRET wouldn’t be renewed even before they decided to build in Portland in the first place.

Last year, Vestas also shut down a wind turbine factory in Tasmania, laying off 65 employees.

Crossposted on Maria Energia.