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

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

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

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

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

Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy

Thanks to Erin over at RE-AMP for the heads-up on this great piece of news: Eight major utilities have agreed to implement energy efficiency measures in order to meet the growing demand for electricity. By emphasizing efficiency over coal, they will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30 million tons — the equivalent of taking almost 6 million cars off the road — and avoid the need to build 50 500-megawatt peaking power plants.

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

Businesses seem to be flocking to appear green, lessen their carbon footprint, and talk about global warming. But scant mention of it was made in most of the reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this year. Should investors be concerned?

A group of state officials, state pension fund managers, investors, and other organizations think so. They are asking the SEC to make all public companies formally address the financial risks their company could face as a result of climate change.

Supporters — led by organizations like Ceres (a network of investors and organizations working on sustainability issues) and the Calvert Group (an assets management firm) — have asked for this disclosure before, and the SEC ignored them. This time, they’re hoping for action by filing a formal petition stating public companies should reveal their total global warming emissions, provide a strategic analysis of the risks and opportunities present by global warming, assess the physical risks to their operations, and analyze any regulatory risks (such as limiting carbon dioxide emissions).

So far, the SEC hasn’t said much except that the requirement for triggering disclosure is that the impact or potential impact has to be material to a company, and therefore material to investors.

The petition argues that the threat and impacts of global warming are financial risks and are material. It’s the SEC’s job to ensure investors have the information they need to make smart decisions, and because climate change will have major impacts on business, those risks need to be disclosed.

While some companies are reporting on global warming already, others find it difficult to do so. Differences in potential regulation — such as a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade policy — means different outcomes for certain industries and difficulty in assessing the risks. One attorney who advises utilities and energy firms told the Washington Post: "For some of our electric power clients, depending on how allowances are distributed, they lose or gain hundreds of millions of dollars. Some are winners under some schemes and vast losers under other schemes."

Green Wombat
Washington Post

The debate about carbon offsets rages on: Are they a true solution to encourage investment in clean, renewable energy and offset dirty fossil fuels? Or are they indulgences of the privileged that allow us to keep on with our polluting ways and a clear conscience?

TerraPass is a popular, for-profit seller of carbon offsets. They’ve leapt into the limelight with strategic partnerships like the one at Expedia.com, which allows customers booking travel reservations to also purchase carbon offsets to cancel out their transportation emissions. But this popularity has also made TerraPass a frequent target of carbon offset skeptics who argue that their customers use them for nothing more than a sort of "get out of polluting free" card.

So the company decided to take a close look at its customer base itself, and just completed a survey that examined customer behaviors and attitudes towards energy. Among the results, the company found the "indulgence factor" to be untrue among their customers.

While Terra Pass customers are buying carbon offsets to counteract their unavoidable dirty activities like driving a car, they are balancing it with other direct action and changes to their own lives. In general, they are doing much more than the average person is to make their lives clean and efficient, and carbon offsets are a component of that. For example, 64 percent have installed compact fluorescent light bulbs (personally, I think CFLs should be a requirement before you’re even allowed to buy offsets), 26 percent take public transportation to work, 6 percent have solar panels, 50 percent have contacted their elected official about global warming, and 69 percent contribute to "green" organizations.

Are offsets a "get out of polluting free" card? Not always. But whether you decide to purchase offsets yourself, first take a hard look at the immediate changes you can make to your own life. Energy efficiency measures are often the cheapest, fastest, and easiest way to shrink your own carbon footprint.

Los Angeles Times
TerraPass

Also on GO:

The Green Options Interview: Erik Blachford, CEO of Terrapass

Photo Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

A thought-provoking new study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has found that locally-owned renewable energy projects generally hold more local economic benefits than large-scale ones.

The “Economies and Diseconomies of Scale” concludes that bigger is not always better. The Minneapolis-based ILSR analyzed the costs and return of wind power and ethanol, both major renewable energy sources in the Upper Midwest. While they are both less expensive to produce on a large scale, the costs of having to transmit the energy across long distances can negate those savings. That, coupled with the fact that large projects are generally owned by corporate or out-of-state interests, makes smaller, local projects more beneficial for the immediate community.

ILSR recommends that states follow Minnesota’s example, where law provides a favorable tariff for locally owned renewable energy projects, requires 51 percent ownership by Minnesota residents, and designates 51 percent of financial benefits to local owners. In addition, the federal production tax credit (PTC) for wind should be changed to allow it to be taken against ordinary income rather than only applying to passive income (such as from rent). This would allow greater access to the tax credit and open it up to more individuals to be renewable energy investors.

A carbon-constrained world presents us with many options for change. Do we want to create – and is it realistic – a totally new energy system, one that is locally owned, producing energy for the local area, with the majority of economic benefits going to the local community? Or does the urgency of global warming demand as much renewable energy as possible, as fast as possible, owned by whomever possible?

Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Minneapolis Star Tribune

Today the U.S. House is likely to vote on the Udall-Platts Amendment to the energy bill. This legislation would require 15 percent of our nation’s electricity to come from renewable sources by the year 2020. It’s high time the federal government catch up to so many states that already have implemented 21st century policies like this one.

But in addition to broad state and federal programs, consumers can also do some renewable energy good for themselves, even if they don’t own a wind turbine or live in a sunny area. They can buy green power.

“Green power” is a term for clean, renewable energy. More than 600 utilities in 36 states give their customers the option to buy their power from renewable energy sources (depending on the state, they normally include solar power, wind, biomass, hydropower, or geothermal) rather than traditional ones (likely to be coal). Although the transmission system can’t guarantee that particular energy from a wind farm makes it to your refrigerator, the total amount of green electricity that travels over the entire system is increased because (ideally) the utility is taking all of the extra revenue and investing in more renewable energy sources.

My fellow blogger Philip Proefrock just covered a green power program he is considering in his homestate of Michigan. Green power programs do vary, whether it’s the location from which the renewable energy is coming (in state or out of state) or the source (I know of one municipal provider that promotes destructive Canadian hydropower as an eco-friendly option, so make sure you know where the energy is coming from).

Here in Minnesota, I purchase wind power through Xcel Energy’s Windsource program. The initial cost is a little more than $3.50 per 100 kWh block, but I also get a credit on my bill for the avoided fuel costs of conventional (i.e. coal) power. The credit varies each month, but my cost last month was less than $11. Windsource was also audited by the Green-e program to ensure that ratepayers’ money is going to build new renewable energy sources, and it passed with flying colors: Windsource funds the costs associated with Xcel purchasing wind power from private owners of wind turbines and new wind generation facilities across the state, so I feel good about my investment.

Find out whether you can buy green power in your state at the U.S. Department of Energy. If you can’t buy green power locally, consider investing in renewable energy credits (RECs) to offset your emissions.

Sierra Club, North Star Chapter
Union of Concerned Scientists
Xcel Energy

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 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

Mayors from the planet’s largest cities gathered in New York last week to discuss how global warming is impacting their cities now, how it may in the future, and what immediate action needs to be taken to slow it.

The “C40 Large Cities Climate Summit” has partnered with the Clinton Climate Initiative to tackle climate change now, rather than waiting for action from national governments. At the Summit, mayors shared best practices, identified collaborative projects, and planned for future action together. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, explained why:

"The fight to tackle climate change will be won or lost in cities…We are not going to simply talk about what we could do, while the window of opportunity for preventing catastrophic climate change disappears. Every city here today is a leader in at least one aspect of the fight to tackle climate change."

Some of the cities' intiatives include:

• New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s controversial proposal for a congestion charge for Manhattan as part of the city's multi-billion dollar Green Plan.
• Toronto Mayo David Miller explained “Zerofootprint Toronto,” which helps residents understand how every aspect of their lives impacts the environment, and creates a network for people to join with friends, neighbors, and coworkers to create a virtual eco-community to create initiatives and measure results.
• Curitiba, Brazil’s Mayor Carlos Alberto Richa described a bus rapid transit system for his city to cut down on pollution from cars.
• Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced GREEN LA, an action plan to reduce the city’s carbon footprint 35 percent below 1990 levels. Villaraigosa said it is the most ambitious goal set yet by a major American city.

Summit organizers also invited business leaders in an effort to involve the private sector. Both parties discused how to work together under the conviction that fighting global warming – through innovation, transportation, and energy efficiency – is profitable.

Peopleandplanet.net
Washington Post