• Submit annual Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans to prioritize agency actions based on lifecycle return on investment;
• Ensure that all new construction, major renovation, or repair and alteration of Federal buildings complies with the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings (Guiding Principles, a document created by an interagency process during the Bush Administration to comply with that Administration’s Executive Order on similar subjects);
• Ensure that at least 15% of the agency’s owned and leased buildings (over 5,000 gross square feet) meet the Guiding Principles by FY 2015;
• Ensure that all new Federal buildings that enter the planning process after 2019 are designed to achieve zero-net-energy use by 2030;
• Ensure that 95% of new contract actions meet sustainable acquisition requirements;
• Reduce potable water consumption by 2% annually;
• Reduce agency consumption of industrial, landscaping, and agricultural water by 2% annually; and
• Divert at least 50% of construction and demolition materials and debris by the end of FY 2015, and divert at least 50% of other non-hazardous solid waste by the end of FY 2015.

Below are four possible explanations:

1. In previous polls things were perhaps a little rosier in general.  The specter of climate change therefore appeared to be a large problem compared to people’s other worries.  Today, the economy is such a worry that it has “crowded” out climate change as the major issue on people’s minds.  Related to this, there might also be a propensity toward wanting to feel as if climate change is less of a threat, for in dealing with the issue people may have to accept higher energy and fuel prices.
2. This last summer was generally a cool one in the U.S.
3. Media coverage has abated on the issue of climate change, focusing primarily on the economy, health care and wars.  This is sharply down from the media furor in the wake of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and public awareness and interest that came from that.
4. Lately, the voices of those dismissive of climate change science have been amplified, especially as it relates to the supposed economic impacts of tackling the issue.  

What are your thoughts on the issue?  Have your feelings changed?  Why?

Few things have been more maligned, more debated and scrutinized in this era of blooming green than the Carbon Offset. Some say they are, after all, akin to an indulgence, they don’t solve any problems directly and they are a method of deferral. But are they? I have come to see them as wonderful and valuable transition tools that generate funding for important projects and that have given value to some of nature’s unvalued services. I eventually learned that, as with any other powerful tool, the tool itself is not good or bad, but it is the intention with which it is used.

At first, as many were, I was wary of the notion of these offsets.

“What do you mean a person or company can buy off their responsibility to take action on the CO2 they are responsible for emitting?” For that is what I thought they were for.

“We need direct action, not deferred responsibility!”

As I dug deeper into the world of the carbon offset, however, I learned that at the other side of the transaction there was an important thing going on: projects were being funded. Not just any old projects or ones that were already getting funded, these were projects that existed solely because of carbon offsets and relied on them for their survival. The purpose of these projects: to prevent the release of climate change-causing greenhouse gases (GHGs) or to remove them from the atmosphere. Pretty noble to start with, but many projects went farther, and those were the ones I was interested in. More on these later.

Sure the system was gamed early on. Carbon cowboys came out of the woodwork and were selling nothing but a bunch of hot global warming gases. There was very little oversight and it was difficult for well-meaning purchasers of carbon offsets to know what they were really getting. Thankfully these days are past. Third-party certifications and registries have come up to look into the closets of the carbon project developers and to make sure that the offsets that are on the market are real, beyond business-as-usual, not double counted, verified, and permanent. The consumer need only be sure that they are buying offsets certified by the most reputable certification bodies* and the guess work is removed.

It’s all about the project

Removing CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is the basis of how carbon offsets work. A project will plant trees that suck up CO2, cap a landfill to prevent the release of methane, capture methane from cow poop, save a forest about to be felled or do many other things to create carbon offsets. Each year the project measures how many tons of greenhouse gases have been saved from the atmosphere that year, has that number verified by the certification body, and is issued that number of carbon offsets (each carbon offset = one ton of CO2). When those carbon offsets are sold, the project makes their revenue and can pay back the lenders that funded this project.

A ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2. What makes a carbon offset good or bad these days, once it has been certified, has to do with the project and that can be a personal decision. What type of project do you want your money funding? Does that project have any co-benefits (things it does beyond removing GHGs)? Where is it located? Etc…

This is where I will give my opinion. I want my carbon offsets to have co-benefits! I believe removing GHGs is crucially important, but not the only thing we need to be doing. That is why I, and the company that I’m a part of, support forestry based carbon offsets. That means either tree planting or forest protection. For my dollar there is no other offset that can match the co-benefits of a forestry offset, especially one that involves a social component. These offsets remove CO2 from the atmosphere by ensuring forests around the world stay healthy and are replanted. They protect bio-diversity, watersheds, local climates, oxygen generation, the lifestyles of forest peoples and more. Plus, the emissions from deforestation are a huge challenge we face. About 20% of global emissions come from deforestation, that is more than the entire global transportation sector!

Giving value to our forests

In my opinion, one of the greatest things carbon offsets have done is give economic value to our intact forests. Never before has a dollar value been assigned to a protected forest ecosystem. With offsets, however, the fact that standing forests contain and sequester CO2, and that the CO2 would be released if the forest were felled or burned, has given these ecosystems significant value. Finally, through the sale of carbon offsets, a protected forest can generate income. This gives incentive to local populations to forgo destroying these trees and generate income by protecting them instead. Finally the economic externalities that have not been accounted for in the past such us destroying ecosystems and losing the services they provide, or polluting, are beginning to be internalized; a crucial step toward achieving global sustainability.

To be fair, there have been issues with forestry offsets in the past, primarily due to the issue of potential impermanence (what if the trees burn down?) and accuracy of measurement. Thankfully these issues have been addressed by the certification bodies. Strict monitoring, measurement and verification protocols have been established to improve the accuracy of measuring the sequestered CO2 in forests. To insure against impermanence, the certification bodies force the project to withhold a significant portion of their carbon credits from sale (20-50% depending on the risk). Should catastrophe befall the project, the withheld “buffer” credits will be used to replace the lost ones. This system is tough on the project developers but helps solidify forest projects as valuable offsetting category with unmatched co-benefits.

Additionally, I like my carbon offsets to empower the inhabitants near the project area. To create jobs, to give them a say in what is happening in their backyard and to help them benefit from what is going on. I believe that climate change, and the other pressing environmental issues we are facing as planet, need to be addressed from the bottom up. The little guy needs to be able to prosper in order for change to occur. Enter the concept of Fair Carbon™. Carbon offsets that strive to improve the lot of locals while removing GHGs.

How they are used

As I mentioned in the introduction, it is how the tool is used that determines its effectiveness. We are entering the age of “greenwashing” awareness. More and more people are becoming skeptical of claims of greenness by companies that are otherwise “brown.” Carbon offsets have been a primary greenwashing tool in the past. Fortunately this is getting rarer and we are finding that it is primarily the companies that are already green that are choosing to go the extra mile and buy offsets.

Offsets are well suited to deal with aspects of a person or company’s operations that are difficult to make more efficient or to eliminate. There are currently no suitable alternatives to flying or shipping when people or products have to be transported. This is where offsets are a great asset to a green company’s sustainability portfolio. Employees feel good about the action and it is just one more way that a green company can put its money where it’s mouth is, take responsibility for its impact and be a part of the solution.

I hope this outlines some of the strengths and weaknesses of carbon offsets. While they should not be treated as the final solution to our environmental challenges, when used properly and in conjunction with other actions, they are extremely valuable as transition tools and may well help save our planets forests from destruction. Additionally, they help responsible people and companies put their money where there mouths are and be a part of the solution.

*Reputable certification standards: The Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), Climate Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCB), The Gold Standard, Social Carbon Standard and more…

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/09/sustainability-initiatives-cut-costs-by-6-10/
Sustainability Initiatives Cut Costs by 6-10%

Why Being a Green Laggard is Bad for Business
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2009/06/02/green-laggard-bad-business

Numi Organic Tea offsets emissions in 2009

Leading organic tea purveyor partners with Big Tree Climate Fund to offset carbon output in 2009

Oakland, CA (June 2, 2009) – Continuing a long-term commitment to sustainable and innovative business practices, Oakland-based Numi Organic Tea announced today its latest initiative toward minimizing impact:  A partnership with Big Tree Climate Fund on a twofold offsetting program, including the purchase of renewable energy certificates (RECs) and carbon offsets.

From its inception ten years ago, Numi Organic Tea has committed to operating a sustainable business through ethical sourcing, ecological packaging and core values focused on protecting the health of people and the planet.

 “We are excited today to continue to raise the bar for corporate environmental practices by launching this exciting new initiative,” said Ahmed Rahim, co-founder and CEO of Numi Organic Tea. “We believe it’s the responsibility of all business owners to find new ways to care for people and the planet while maintaining a bottom line. This is really one of the most innovative means to give back while being more conscious of our overall environmental impact.”

Big Tree Climate Fund, founded in 2007 by Frederick Schilling, former CEO of Dagoba Chocolate, provides carbon offsets, renewable energy certificates and tree-planting programs to companies that want to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and lower their environmental impact.  These partnerships support projects that help combat climate change while benefiting communities and protecting local environments.  

“I am truly excited to be working with such a progressive company as Numi Organic Tea on their continued commitment to environmental leadership and company excellence,” said Schilling. “By offsetting their carbon footprint to the depth they are, it not only solidifies them as an environmental leader in the food and beverage industry, but global industry at large.”  

Big Tree assisted Numi in conducting an annual emissions audit through calculations of carbon output in electricity and natural gas usage, employee air travel, use of company car, pounds of landfill use and overall shipping for 2008. Big Tree then sources and supplies the equivalent amount of carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates. These fund high-quality renewable energy and greenhouse gas abatement projects. Numi has purchased enough carbon offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates to offset its total estimated emissions for 2009. The emissions from electricity were offset by buying Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs, and all other emissions were offset by buying carbon offsets.

Big Tree Climate Fund certifies that Numi Organic Tea has purchased 515 metric tons of CO2 equivalent and 24 Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to offset its emissions for 1 year from May 1, 2009. The REC purchases support the Wilton Wind Energy Center, a wind farm in North Dakota that generates enough electricity to power 15,000 homes. The carbon offset purchases support the Brazilian Methane Avoidance/Clean Water Initiative, which is certified under the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and has been selected by the Environmental Defense Fund as a model project for global carbon reductions. As a result, treated wastewater from the Irani Brazilian pulp and paper manufacturing company can now be directed to a river without containing harmful organic material, thus maintaining a clean water supply for animals, plants and humans.

Numi’s additional recent sustainable initiatives include a recently implemented social 401K program and a European-based distribution facility, allowing for Numi to reduce environmental impact by providing manufacturing and distribution closer to the end buyer. Both Numi Organic Tea and Big Tree Climate Fund are certified B Corporations, representing a high bar of corporate social and environmental responsibility.

Numi Organic Tea, founded in 1999 by brother-and-sister duo Ahmed and Reem Rahim, holds a prominent place in the specialty tea category for its premium-quality Organic and Fair Trade Certified teas and herbs. Numi is committed to sourcing directly from the farmers to deliver the best taste and highest quality. Numi Organic products contain 100 percent real ingredients for a pure taste, without the use of any oils or “natural” flavorings. Numi is a leader in sustainability and produces a healthy product that benefits people and the planet.  www.numitea.com.

Big Tree Climate Fund is a vertically integrated provider of carbon offsets, renewable energy certificates and tree-planting programs.  The first B Corporation in its sector, Big Tree works with companies that want to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and lower their environmental impact.  These partnerships support projects that help combat climate change while benefiting communities and protecting local environments.  As a developer, Big Tree designs its projects to go beyond greenhouse gas reductions by also showing improvements in a variety of social and environmental metrics.  The offsets generated from these projects are called Fair Carbon™ and 10% of their proceeds support Big Tree’s Community Fund to further benefit local communities. www.bigtreeclimatefund.com. 

GMO Sugar Beets on Boulder County Open Space

Living in Boulder, it surprised me to no end when I learned from a colleague that Boulder was considering allowing genetically modified (GMO) Monsanto Round-Up Ready™ sugar beets to be cultivated on Boulder Open Space and that there was to be a public hearing on the matter.  Surely there must be a mass uprising in the works, surely all manner of “greenies” would emerge and march against such heresy.  This is liberal Boulder after all and everyone thinks that Monsanto is the devil and GMO seeds are its evil spawn.  Well, attending the hearing was enlightening to say the least.



The May 28th meeting was just a ‘fact finding mission.’  No decisions were to be made, it was simply intended to inform the Boulder County Open Space about both sides of the issue and help inform a future decision (see links at the end for details on the future process).  The meeting included members of the Boulder County community that I don’t come into contact with very often.  Namely the farmers, but not the variety that stands behind their local, organic produce at the farmer’s market.  These were the large-scale farmers.  Family farmers still, and many had been so longer than the farmer’s market variety, but these farmers grew on thousands of acres and sold their goods to larger distributers and processors.  Also present were representatives of the conventional farming industry, a selection of agricultural ‘experts’ from various universities and some Boulderites that were poised to voice their opposition.

The farmers in the room where different than what one might expect from those considering GMO crops.  They weren’t a big companies or land barons, they were local, often struggling, workers of the land that were looking for any leg up in a tough line of work.  One such farmer began his presentation by showing historical family photos.  His family has been growing sugar beets in Boulder County for three generations and was planting its 100^th sugar beet crop.  The photos clearly demonstrated the back-breaking labor that was required of old style sugar beet cultivation.  I imagine that family celebrated every agricultural advancement that had allowed them to save labor and time.  It was an interesting and empathy inducing look into the life of a modern farmer.  I asked myself as I listened to his presentation if, during the agricultural revolution and the advent of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and other modern efficiencies, the farmers of the time even have the economic option to forgo these new developments.  Could they have survive as traditional farmers before there was even a market for organic produce when all their competitors experienced enhanced yields and lower overheads?  I guessed not.  I imagine that period must have felt like a miracle to those that been pulling weeds or loosing crops to pests.             

Other presenters stepped up to provide some context for the future decision.  A Boulder County Open space representative detailed the status quo.  It turns out Boulder’s admirable respect for open space has manifested in a variety of ways.  In addition to the many trails and multi-use areas that abound, there are also thousands of acres that are leased to farmers. These plots are located east of Boulder, out amongst the farms and away from recreating people, so farming them seems to make sense, and so farmed they are… conventionally and, according to the county’s GMO protocols, with GMO corn.

“Conventional” is a bad word among greenies. Related to farming practices it refers to the modern, chemical dependent methods of cultivation.  The farms that are cultivating Boulder County public land often use conventional methods.  In hearing, the third generation farmer wanting permission to grow Round-Up Ready sugar beets on the public land he was leasing gave a little show-and-tell on the chemicals he currently uses to grow his conventional, non-GMO beets. It turns out that weeds are a huge issue when growing a large field of sugar beets.  The little beet plants get totally out-competed by the vigorous, prolific weeds.  So a farmer has to use an herbicidal stew to keep all the weed varieties in control.  He has to be careful however or he’ll kill or weaken the beets, which conventionally grow to only 80-90% of their potential, and sometime much less, due to herbicidal damage.  The variety of herbicides this farmer uses on the public land he leases is startling, and their names sound like the front line of a Transformers battalion: you’ve got your Gramoxone Extra for early pre-emergent application, your Nortron or Ro-Neet or Betamix in spring or fall, the Stinger for Canadian Thistle Control, Assure for grasses and the Eptam as your Lay-By herbicide.  All these require tractor pass after tractor pass and at the end of it all, there are still weeds that need to get removed by expensive hand labor.

Spraying sugar beets

  With Round-Up Ready sugar beets, all you supposedly need is one chemical, Round-Up (glyphosate), applied less frequently with fewer tractor passes and with more lenient timing so as to require less hand labor.  This results in a better product, for cheaper, with a lower carbon footprint using fewer chemicals. What’s the catch?  Oh yeah, it’s a GMO crop.  It is a genetically modified plant that has been invented by the agricultural company Monsanto to be resistant to its herbicide Round-Up.  These beets can thrive through the application of a glyphosate herbicide (whether its Monsanto’s Round-Up or not actually, although non-Round-Up use voids the seed’s warranty), while all other plants around them die.  This is beneficial in many ways including the fact that you can apply the herbicide later in the season, when everything is bigger, and the weeds can be used for the benefits they provide such as fostering bio-diversity in the field… until they become too competitive with the beets and are then annihilated with an application of Round-Up.  The yields will be large because you have removed the factor of the herbicide damage which reduces yields by 20% or more, and profits will be bigger by weight because you use less chemicals, gas and man power.  It’s amazing really… if it’s all true.

Round-Up Ready sugar beet

             Again, the only problem is that they are GMO crops and that they carry a stigma, an uncertainty and a certain Franken-food fear-inducing quality.  These feelings may be justified.  There is an increasing body of evidence suggesting that GMO foods might really pose a health risk to consumers.  Recently, The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated Foods citing some animal studies which suggest mutagenic and other undesirable effects in not only the plants themselves but in those consuming them.  They called for more time to be able to study the long-term effects of these crops.

           Additionally, GMO crops are criticized for the danger they pose to contaminating non-GMO gene pools.  There have been documented accounts of GMO corn spreading its genes into neighboring fields and growing where it shouldn’t.  Monsanto even famously sued some farmers for growing their crop without purchasing it after it arrived uninvited onto their land.  Understandably, the danger of gene pool contamination also has the organic farming community up in arms.  Their carefully cultivated crops would be ineligible for organic certification if they were found to be contaminated with GMO genes.



There is also the danger of weeds developing a resistance to the herbicide Round-Up. This has already happened in the southeastern US.  If the herbicide Round-Up is used too often, resistance in weeds develops and these new “super weeds” render the whole product package less effective. Then it’s back to calling on the Transformers to fight these new, even stronger the mutant plants and it is just like old conventional practices again, but this time Monsanto is supplying all the seeds.    



Finally, there is the matter of being dependent on Monsanto for both the seeds and herbicide, leaving farmers overly vulnerable to Monsanto’s greed swings.  Perhaps it is not surprising that some Round-Up ready soy farmers have been getting upset with Monsanto because the price of seeds rose from $35 to $50 a bag and Round-Up went from $15 to $50 a gallon. Once they’ve got you, they’ve got you.

        

Debates rage and discussions occur but meanwhile Monsanto’s GMO crops are taking over.   Over 50% of canola, 60-80% of corn, 92% of soy, and 95% of sugar beets grown in the US are now Round-Up Ready!  Amazingly, the Round-Up Ready sugar beets were only introduced in 2008.  So the 95% uptake has occurred over two seasons!  This scramble toward GMO crops has lead to many seed producers focusing so much on breeding the GMO seeds that they are phasing out the non-GMO seed varieties altogether.  Soon, there may no longer be a source for non-GMO sugar beets seeds.

        

Back in Boulder County, the farmers are petitioning to be able grow these crops on public land or they’ll be in real trouble.  Why?  Well it turns out farming is a tough business and there are several reasons.  



Each farmer that grows sugar beets in the area is a member of a CO-OP that runs a sugar processing plant.  This plant needs to process a certain amount of sugar in order to remain solvent.   To ensure this, each farmer gets shares in the CO-OP, with each share representing one acre of sugar beets.  If a farmer has 1000 shares he must bring in 1000 acres of sugar beets to be processed, no less.  If he fails to meet the quota he gets fined about $350 per share he is short.  Additionally, sugar beets are a unique crop requiring unique machines for planting and harvest.  Each farmer is therefore bound to sugar beet production by both the COOP obligation and their capital investment.  If they don’t plant GMO seeds and non-GMO seeds become harder to get, they might find themselves out of business.  



Here is a summary of the arguments made for GMO sugar beet production by the Boulder County farmers:



·     If they grow non-GMO beets they will be at an economic disadvantage at best or out of business at worst.  



·     Regarding the threat of pollen spread and gene pool contamination:  Beets are biennial which means their life cycle takes two years.  The first year they grow the bulb and the second year they produce the flowers and pollen.  The beets are harvested at the end of the first year so there is less chance of pollen spreading.   Due to the natural occurrence of wonky genes however, a small percentage of all beets do flower the first year.  Monsanto, therefore, contractually obligates all Round-Up Ready growers to go into the fields every two weeks and to cull those plants. Whether this will practically occur is another matter.

·     Regarding GMO ingredients in food:  Sugar beets make sugar.  The final product is so refined that at the end it is 99.7% sucrose and the last 0.03% is a little bit of moisture.  There is no protein matter or any other “contaminants” in the pure finished product.   This supposedly removes the risk of there being any GMO-ness in the sugar. (Just stay away from the non-organic molasses.  It is the leftovers from the sugar refining process and it will contain all the herbicide residue and any present GMO-ness).



·     Regarding organic alternatives:  Current immigration policies and other factors have resulted in a shortage of manual labor.  A farmer described a trial with non-GMO beets where he decided to spend all the money he would normally spend on chemicals on laborers to weed the land instead.  The laborers walked out halfway through the season (why, I’m not sure) and the crop failed.  There are currently no organic growers of sugar beets and there have been some inconclusive trials.  I find it “interesting” that intolerant immigration policy has made large-scale organic operations less viable due to labor shortages.    



·      Regarding the environment:  They say Round-Up is a relatively “benign” herbicide compared to some of the Agent Orange-like alternatives because it is not water-soluble and becomes inactive when it contacts the soil.  It also needs to be used lower quantities.  Other sources retort these assertions, however. Round-Up and the other glyphosate herbicides have in fact been shown to be harmful to the environment (duh!) and it has been documented that using the GMO crops does not in fact reduce herbicide use.  The technology allows you to spray glyphosate indiscriminately after all, with no harm to the crop. In addition, multiple studies have shown (see links at the bottom) that the emergence of super weeds lead to the eventual use of a wide variety of herbicides – again.



None of this really addresses the potential hazards GMO crops pose to humans, the supposed beneficiaries of these wonder crops.  As it stands it seems the final destination will have to be the adoption of efficient, modern, large-scale, organic agriculture.  In the short term GMOs might be better for the environment than calling on the Transformer battalion of poisons – that is until the super weeds evolve.  Anything has to be better than dumping those tons of toxins onto the earth.  Maybe GMOs are even healthier to consume than the more herbicide laden conventional foods?  Perhaps, but it would only be the lesser of two evils.  The rub is that we wont really know until it is too late as the health effects of consuming GMO crops are more likely to show up in the long term.

One day we will need to return to the basics of food production lest we face large-scale epidemics and other ecological and societal side effects that we cannot yet predict.  Perhaps it is a matter of downsizing the super farm and being willing to pay a little more for our food in order to support organic methods.  We as a society have to learn that cheap goods result in costs being deferred.  We think cheap is good and take it at face value but really the costs are being paid by the environment (ie. future generations and the poor) and by the health care system (and our bodies).  Whatever the solution, I know from my perspective that I do not envy the farmers of today, I worry about the safety of our food tomorrow and that I will continue to buy organic forever.  



Jonathan is director of operations of the Boulder based company Big Tree Climate Fund, a provider of socially beneficial, forestry based carbon offsets and tree-planting programs.  He maintains a blog on their website, www.bigtreeclimatefund.com that discusses green issues in a manner that the average person can understand. 

More information on Boulder County Open Space Sugar beet agendas: http://www.bouldercounty.org/openspace/Sugarbeets.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jul/25/gm.food 


http://www.biotech-info.net/lessons_learned.pdf http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/hrbcde_use_gm_cropsjan04.pdf http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/mar09/farmers_planting_non-gmo_soybeans.php

http://www.saynotogmos.org/beets.pdf http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/sugarbeet/weed/Herbicides%20for%20sugar%20beets.pdf

The last few weeks have seen the first debates on the latest draft of the potential US climate legislation.  It was unveiled last month, discussed, taken back behind closed doors for further mark-ups, and has recently reemerged.

The bill uses a market-based approach to curb greenhouse gas emissions called “Cap and Trade”.  This is an alternative to a straight-up tax on the pollution. A Cap and Trade system is often favored over a tax because it allows the markets to create incentives for pollution reduction, although there is still plenty of debate on the merits of each. This can ease the transition for businesses, and in this democracy, it increases the chance of some type of measure actually being passed (New taxes are generally considered to be non-starters).  Another plus of a Cap and Trade system is that the government can set an actual cap on total national emissions.  A tax has no way of capping emissions at a certain level – it merely puts a cost on the emissions.

The way a Cap and Trade system works is that the government decides which industries and sectors to regulate, sets a cap for total allowable emissions and then gives away (or sells) allowances to the regulated entities. Each allowance would represent 1 ton of CO2 and in order to pollute 1 ton of CO2, a company would have to turn in an allowance.  This way, companies that can reduce their pollution will end up with extra allowances.  These they can sell to other companies in need of them or hold on to them for future use.  An economic incentive to pollute less is created.  Over time the cap is lowered and therefore pollution is reduced in a transitional way.

A sticking point to date has been whether to auction off the allowances or to give them away.  President Obama was a vocal proponent of auctioning them in order to help raise money to ease the transition to higher energy costs for low-income communities and to help balance the budget.  There has been strong opposition to this however due to the dramatic increase in costs to regulated companies, mainly because what was always free (emitting CO2) would all of a sudden carry a significant cost (buying allowances).  Representatives from greenhouse gas intensive industries argued that the sudden jump in overhead cost would disadvantage them on the global market and lead to those companies relocating to unregulated countries or losing market share.  This scenario, given the current economic downturn, was unacceptable to many and has lead to a compromise where 85% of allowances would be given away and 15% would be auctioned.  The proceeds from the 15% would go to low-income communities to help pay for increased energy costs (more on this in the future).

Here is a brief overview of the basics of the bill as they stand now. There is still much debating to be done so many of these may change:

It will regulate more and more emitters over time.

• In 2012 it will cover 68.2% of US emissions: All electricity generators, Natural gas liquid-, petroleum- and coal-based liquid fuel producers/importers (upstream) whose products when combusted emit over 25,000 tonnes annually, producers and importers of fluorinated gases and geologic storage sites.
• In 2014 it will cover 75.7% of US emissions by adding industrial sources (downstream) that annually emit 25,000 tonnes or more, not including emissions from petroleum and biomass combustion, plus all sources (regardless of size) in select energy intensive sectors (e.g. glass, ceramics).
• In 2016 it will cover 84.5% of US emissions by adding Natural gas Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) (midstream) that deliver more than 460,000,000 cubic feet of gas annually to non-covered entities.

It will cut emissions by: 

• 3% below 2005 national levels by 2012.
• 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
• 42% below 2005 levels by 2030.
• 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

It will give away 85% of allowances and auction off 15%

It includes a renewable energy standard that mandates 15% of the nation’s energy must come from renewable energy and there must be a 5% savings from energy efficiency by 2020

And of course much more… see the related articles below to get a sense of all that is involved.

The Bill:  http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/hr2454.pdf 

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/05/15/waxman-markey-climate-change-bill-advances

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/05/22/waxman-markey-ii-a-few-of-the-key-components-of-the-bill/

http://www.wri.org/stories/2009/04/brief-summary-waxman-markey-discussion-draft.

Increasing the amount of renewable energy in our electricity generation mix has widely been touted as one of the most important things we can do to help prevent further climate change.  Beyond the benefits to climate, it will also provide the ancillary benefits of stimulating the national economy, increasing energy independence, and helping to insulate us from volatile fossil fuel prices.  It certainly seems to be a win/win/win situation and it is, after we get over a some major hurdles: two big ones are transmission and storage.

Transmission refers to the movement of the electricity from where it is generated to where it is used and storage is the ability to store the electricity so that it can be used when it is needed.  Both have to be addressed for renewable energy can to be a player in national energy supply.  This posting will discuss transmission.

Transmission:  Much renewable energy is location dependent and the generation ebbs and flows with the natural conditions.  It is sunnier in some spots (the southwestern deserts) and it is windier in others (the great plains), geothermal is dependent on where the hotspots are and wave, tide, and hydro, well you get the idea.  The problem is that no one really lives in some of the best places for renewable generation, especially the very windy and very sunny ones, so getting the energy from the generator to the end-user has be efficient over long distances and be able to handle the variable loads… and the grid now-a-days was just not built to handle that.

Today’s power grids are designed for local delivery from power plants nearby.  While the nations grids are all connected, they are not in sync and not intended to transmit electricity between them.  This makes it impossible to move large amounts of power between regions, a requirement to meet the 25% by 2025 renewable energy goal set by the Obama administration. 

Below is a diagram of the nations sub-regions grid system.

So what is the solution? 

Part 1: national grid system.  We need the equivalent of the interstate highway system for electricity.  Technology has gotten to a point where huge amounts of electricity can be transmitted over vast distances with fewer transmission losses at lower cost.  For example, China is building an extra-high-voltage DC line from Xiangjiaba, one of its western hydropower megaprojects, to Shanghai.  The power line will carry enough electricity to satisfy the needs of about 31 million people.  If it used the 1990 technology we are using for the 920 mile transmission line from Quebec to New England, it would serve 1 million fewer people due to transmission losses.  The cost of installing such an electrical highway system amounts to about $60 billion, but it is estimated to cost us just a few dollars more per month in electricity costs.

Part 2: A smart grid.  Once the power arrives to consumers it must be used efficiently in order for the grid to thrive.  The variability of renewable energy makes it difficult to manage.  Skies darken or winds stop blowing and, if 25% of your energy comes from these sources, you are left with a real deficit.  Conventionally, the grid controllers would call the fossil fuel generators and tell them to increase output, but as more and more renewables enter the system, this will become less practical, or even impossible.

Enter the smart grid.  Boulder, Colorado is part a pilot program by the utility Excel where one of the first system-wide installations of a smart grid is taking place.  This new grid, along with the smart meters, will allow customers to track the details of their electricity use, adjust it according to energy supply and tell the utility about that use.  The information the meters provide have already been shown to increase energy efficiency in other programs.  Eventually this system will allow customers to set preferences so that they can run dishwashers and other appliances only at times when renewable energy sources are generating. 

Rolling out this massive new infrastructure is going to take time… and money.  Excel will wait for the numbers on the value of the grid, due in late 2010, before it expands beyond Boulder.  If all goes as expected, however, smart grids could roll out nation wide within 5 years.

As far as the new national transmission lines, the administration’s stimulus and tax credits will accelerate the process.  The real challenges lie in getting the rights to the land over which the lines have to travel, and negotiating the lawsuits, power struggles, and other issues associated with this type of national project.  Most people don’t want huge power lines in their backyard, even if they do carry renewable energy.  What is really needed is overarching federal legislation that creates a national process for designing an interstate grid.  The latest climate change bill being debated in congress contains such language so we can only hope that this piece of the puzzle, crucial for us to get the renewable energy we need, falls into place.

Discussed in the next blog… energy storage.

Climate Change.

It’s nothing new, “global warming” or “climate change” as it is now fashionably called, is happening and we are along for the ride.  For those not aware of how or why this is happening a quick review:

Greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change.  These are gases that trap the heat from the sun within the atmosphere rather than letting it bounce off into space.  This has been important to our planet for without the greenhouse effect the earth would be uncomfortably cold with an average temp of -4˚ Fahrenheit based on how far our planet is from the sun and how reflective it is.  The situation now is a little out of hand, as I’ll explain.

Many greenhouse gases are naturally occurring.  Water vapor, is the most common greenhouse gas.  Then there is CO₂, the gas we all exhale which is the second most prominent greenhouse gas.  There is also Methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more potent than CO₂.  Methane is a natural product of decomposition in an oxygen-free environment like in bogs, swamps, or animal digestive systems, ie. farts.  There is also ozone.

The natural cycle involves CO₂ being absorbed by plants and used to build their carbon-based bodies.  When they die or are eaten, the CO₂ gets released back into the atmosphere. Oceans play a role in absorption and release and sometimes volcanoes erupt and spew huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.   Sometimes organic (plant or animal) material is buried underground without decaying (and without releasing CO₂) and turns eventually into fossil fuels.  There is a natural ebb and flow of greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere but overall volume in the atmosphere stays within a pretty reliable range. 

The Carbon Cycle

See the image below showing the CO₂ levels in the atmosphere (blue line) over the last 400 thousand years.  This data is collected by looking at little air bubble trapped deep in the ice of glaciers that have been around that long.  The orange line is the record of the temperatures during that time.  It is easy to see the direct correlation between the two.  The temperature of the earth is directly related to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere.  See how the blue line goes up really steeply at the right-hand side of the diagram…. The orange line will do that too.  What is that?

click on image to enlarge

That steep part of the blue line is humans finding huge reserves of fossilized (un-decayed) organic matter and basing our economies on the relatively cheap energy these fossil fuels provide.   We basically unearthed a huge amount of stored CO2 from outside our finely calibrated carbon cycle and are dumping it into the atmosphere making the blue line go up…. And the orange line too.

Of course, burning fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil and natural gas is not the only source of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, others include:

·      Deforestation (ie. releasing tons of stored CO₂ stored within the trees’ biomass) is responsible for 20% of the world’s anthropogenic (man-caused) greenhouse gas emissions.  That is more than all the worlds cars, trucks, ships and airplanes!!!   

·      There is also the result raising livestock on an industrial scale, which releases methane from the waste and their digestive systems. 

·      Landfills that contain organic matter also release large quantities of methane (hence composting programs). 

·      Conventional farming with its petro-fertilizers and use of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times as strong as CO₂)

·      Super potent greenhouse gases such as HFCs (Hydrofluorocarbons, 120-12,000 times more potent than CO₂) PFCs, (Perfluorocarbons, 5,700 –11,900 times more potent than CO₂) and SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride, 22,900 times more potent than CO₂) are released in industrial processes that involve refrigerants, electrical transmission, and more.

There is more information available on the “about climate change” page of our website here (http://www.bigtreeclimatefund.com/about-climate-change/) as well as links to other resources.

Next we’ll start discussing what is on the table for combating this issue.