Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak may be the first mayor in the nation to drive a plug-in hybrid vehicle as his official city car.

Since he was first elected in 2002, Mayor Rybak’s official car has been a Toyota Prius. But the dramatically superior gas mileage of a plug-in hybrid vehicle prompted him to make the switch: he had his hybrid converted to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, from which he expects to get about 70 miles per gallon (mpg) compared to his average 40 mpg with the Prius.

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is like a regular hybrid with a cord. That is, its battery can be recharged by plugging it into a regular 120-volt outlet.

Typical of many PHEVs, Mayor Rybak’s car can travel about 30 miles solely on battery power if the speeds are 30 mph or less. If he drives further or needs to go faster, the car automatically switches over to using the gas engine. But for local city driving — when speeds are low and distances are shorter — he could go days without using any gasoline to power the engine.

Although most of Minnesota’s electricity comes from coal power, powering a vehicle with the electric grid is still cleaner than gasoline. But the Mayor and other city officials want to make it even cleaner: Minneapolis has applied for a state grant to install solar panels on some city buildings so that future plug-in cars could charge up using solar power instead of fossil fuels. Rybak told the Minnesota Daily:

It became clear to me that the two big things we had to do were convert to plug-in hybrids and find a way to have them use electricity from non-coal sources … I become very frustrated with people saying we need to do years of research on all these issues. Research is great, but the technology is there right now.

Last year, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to pass legislation promoting plug-in hybrids. The law instructs the state to buy plug-in hybrids on a preferred basis when they become available and encourages Minnesota State University - Mankato to develop flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles (plug-ins that can run on an ethanol blend).

Minneapolis has about 100 government vehicles that are either hybrids or use E-85 fuel (an 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline blend). Leadership from the city and supportive government policies could make plug-in hybrids a more common occurrence on Twin Cities roads.

BIOconversion Blog
Cal Cars
City of Minneapolis
Minnesota Daily

Photo Source: City of Minneapolis

Findings from a new report examining insurance companies’ responses to climate change were released at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors last week. The study found that an increasing number of companies are implementing initiatives to reduce the risk of climate change’s impacts and reduce the emissions that cause the problem.

"From Risk to Opportunity 2007: Insurer Responses to Climate Change" was commissioned by Ceres, a U.S. group of investors and clean energy supporters that also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which manages more than $4 trillion in assets. Mindy S. Lubber, President of Ceres, explained the report’s findings:

Insurers are beginning to respond to global warming – and not just by withdrawing from coastal markets with high financial exposure. We’re seeing a rapid proliferation of products that will reduce climate-related financial losses, as well as the pollution causing global warming. Yet, insurer responses to date are not nearly sufficient given the scale of the challenge. We need more insurers, especially U.S. insurers, to step up.

Indeed, Europe’s largest insurer, Allianz, said that climate change may increase insured losses from extreme events in an average year by 37 percent within a decade. Karolinska medical university in Sweden predicts cardiovascular health problems to rise along with global temperatures.

Some specific initiatives offered by companies around the globe include:

• Green building credits
• Drought protection
• Incentives for investing in renewable energy (London-based Willis Holdings will cover potential underproduction of wind power)
• Clean transportation (The Japanese company Sompo gives premium discounts to policyholders who drive low-emitting cars)

All in all, the report found 422 examples from 190 insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and insurance organizations from 26 nations. That’s more than double the number of products found in a similar report barely over a year ago. I was surprised to learn that forty percent of the initiatives are from U.S. companies, although not surprisingly only a small minority of companies overall are exploring how climate change may affect business or are offering products to mitigate it.

With billions of dollars lost this year from unprecedented flooding and windstorms in Europe and wildfires in the U.S., some are nervous that climate change threatens the entire industry’s long-term viability. While the products from a handful of companies certainly won’t slow the consequences on their own, they must multiply to be part of the global solution that includes private sector involvement, government leadership, and consumer response.

Depending on whom you ask, emissions from air travel make up 2-6 percent of the planet’s total CO2 emissions (as a whole, the transportation sector makes up about a quarter of those emissions). But airlines in particular have been getting a bad rap among some in the environmental community because of it, and a recent conference of European airline industries debated how to brighten their image.

One British strategic communications firm argued that the airline industry essentially needs a PR makeover. Steve Dunne of the Brighter Group went so far as to say that the industry risks sliding into a reputation akin to that of cigarette manufacturers in the U.S.: "The aviation industry is just not representing itself properly or effectively to put the lobbying efforts of the eco-warriors into some kind of perspective."

I’m not convinced the risk is that dramatic — at least here in the U.S. While there are certainly efficiency measures airlines should be considering — such as being towed to a starting point on the runway instead of burning fuel to get there – advocating a total ban on air travel as some do (or even very high taxes) is a losing cause (by the way, I want to hear a convincing argument as to why flying on a commercial plane isn’t public transportation, like taking the bus).

But the pollution problems for the industry could take off: The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that while the CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer have decreased, the increased number of passengers overall has negated that efficiency. Furthermore, the World Wildlife Fund predicts airlines to make up 15 percent of all global CO2 emissions by 2041.

So while the airlines may not be likened to cigarette manufacturers yet, they should consider some reputation management now. And there are good things happening: The International Air Transport Association says they saved 6 million tons of CO2 by shortening routes worldwide. Virgin’s Richard Branson just announced that he’s planning a 747 biofuel test flight for early next year, and Northwest put together a taskforce of employees and managers that came up with ways to cut inefficient fuel use by 31 million gallons per year. To keep up with the increasing number of passengers and the increasing concern about global warming (including carbon regulation), however, the airlines industry will have to continue decreasing their contribution to the problem and keep telling the public about it. Telling their side of the story — while performing real, meaningful leadership — will keep their reputation from taking a nose dive.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

International Herald Tribune

While General Electric announced structural changes to compensate for increased business in its energy-efficient lighting sector, BP is planning to restructure itself to emphasize…more petroleum.

Once self-dubbed "Beyond Petroleum" because of its increased focus on clean energy — and even considered to be one of the friendlier oil companies by clean energy supporters — BP is now folding its gas power and renewables division into its two exploration and refining segments. But despite the de-emphasis on renewables, it will continue to use the "Beyond Petroleum" moniker (still good for business I suppose) and build wind turbines and solar cells.

Why the change? Simple business: The company’s new CEO, Tony Hayward, is frustrated with its performance compared to rivals like ExxonMobil. While Exxon and BP produce nearly the same about of oil each day (4.2 million barrels from Exxon compared to 3.8 million from BP), the stock market "values" BP’s barrels at $59 and Exxon’s at $122. So Hayward wants to realign BP with its core mission to boost profits: find oil and gas and make it into fuel. As James Harding of the The Times (London) put it, "Mr Hayward is setting out to make BP resemble Exxon, not The Body Shop."

But is this a "brutal reality check" for clean energy supporters, as Harding opines? Or did BP never really leave its oily roots in the first place? Should we be surprised that an oil company — that commits to a hardly-a-drop-in-the-oil-bucket investment of $8 billion in the next 10 years on clean energy — goes back to emphasizing fossil fuels?

I don’t think so. But nor should we discount the fact that they are investing in wind and solar. However, I do wonder whether this restructuring also alters BP’s plan for operating in a carbon-constrained marketplace.

Back in June, Hayward addressed policymakers in Berlin about climate change and how efficient and clean technologies – combined with a price on carbon emissions — will help slow global warming. While BP is talking the talk and making some overtures to clean energy, consumers – backed by a supportive marketplace and policymakers — will still need to be the driving force behind a clean and efficient energy future.

British Petroleum
The Times
Earth2Tech

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

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

Besides the Udall-Platts amendment to the House energy bill that calls for a federal renewable energy standard (requiring 20 percent of our energy to come from renewables by 2020), another progressive energy bill may up for a vote this week.

It’s far reaching – both in terms of what it would do for the country, and that actually passing it may be a bit of a reach.

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) has authored a bill that increases the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018. Currently the requirement is 27.5 mpg – and that number has hardly changed in more than 10 years.

Unlike the current requirement, however, Markey’s proposed standard does not have a lower mpg rate for most pickups and SUVs. The Senate’s 35 mpg version that passed earlier this summer also didn’t distinguish between cars and pickups/SUVs. The Senate bill was strongly opposed by the auto industry and lawmakers from states with auto factories.

On the other hand, Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE) have a bill requiring cars to have a 35 mpg standard and trucks to reach 32 mpg by 2022. This version is supported by automakers.

CNN reports that speculation is swirling over what will happen in the House. If neither of these fuel efficiency proposals makes it to the House floor, then the House will work off the Senate’s version – which is stronger than the Hill-Terry proposal. So in the end, the House may not vote on fuel efficiency standards at all, thus avoiding the gamble that the Hill-Terry bill passes and guaranteeing that the Senate version heads to conference committee.

Or, is a perfect bill the enemy of a good bill in this case? If there’s a piece of legislation, supported by automakers, that gets us to 35 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for trucks by 2022, should we pass it in 2007 in lieu of waiting for perhaps another bill and another vote in 2008? Or, are we setting the bar too low altogether?

CNN
National Public Radio

Image Source: Graphic / MIT School of Architecture and Planning

You’ve probably never considered crowds to be a renewable source of energy. Lucky for us, two smarty-pants grad students at MIT’s School of Architecture and Planning are trying to figure it out.

James Graham and Thaddeus Jusczyk envision harvesting the mechanical energy from human movement – like commuters in a train station or fans at a rock concert – for electricity. This “crowd farm” would be a responsive sub-flooring system and made up of blocks that depress slightly when people step on them. When the blocks slip against each other they would generate power through the principle of the dynamo, a device that converts the energy of motion into that of an electric current.

Crowds of people at a train station aren’t going to be enough to power the train itself: Graham and Jusczyk explain that thousands of people would be needed to make up the 28,527 steps needed to power a moving train for one second. But for smaller, very energy-efficient devices, the students’ idea could lead to something bigger: Their test case included a prototype stool that used the act of sitting to generate power. The weight of the body on the seat causes a flywheel to spin, which powers a dynamo that lights four LEDs (super-efficient lightbulbs).

The architecture students ultimately want an energy supply that’s integrated into a new sort of building system, one that harnesses the active power of humans to power a cleaner, more efficient lifestyle in the 21st century.

MIT News