Red, Green, and Blue

Stephen Colbert delves into the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, including the choice words House Minority Leader John Boehner had for it and the “exorbitant” $175 annual pricetag.

“I believe in climate change for a very important reason,” said Colbert during his show last night, “so I can market the new Colbert Report Green. It’s just like the regular Colbert Report except we reduce emissions by jumping on the bandwagon.” Watch it: Read the rest of this entry »

San Francisco, CA - They’re everywhere. On the streets, in gutters; even collecting in pools of water. Little orange and white rolls of paper and tobacco. Cigarettes. Once used, these unfriendly remains haunt our down towns and our backyards. But it’s time to say goodbye to the orange and white…in San Francisco at least. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee unanimously supported a measure that will help get rid of the stubs of used cigarettes.

The measure would increase the price of cigarettes by $0.20 per pack. The hike in price isn’t simply to discourage the purchase of cigarettes, but to help mitigate the costs of cigarette clean-up, relying on those who use cigarettes to help clean up.

Studies done by the city show that 25% of all litter found on sidewalks and in gutters is cigarette related. The $0.20 per pack of cigarettes would be reported and remitted on a regular basis by the retailers who collect the money at the counter. The funds would then be dispersed by the city  for use in litter collection.

“All litter creates unnecessary costs for the city and its taxpayers,” said Mayor Newsom. “Cigarette butts are a big part of the problem.” Newsom, who commended the Board for their support of the fee on Monday, June 29, included this fee as a line item in his June 1 budget and introduced this legislation to enact a regulatory fee to recover these costs from the consumers of cigarettes.

Not only are cigarette butts eyesores, but they are harmful to the environment as well. ”Cigarette butts contain benzene and toxic heavy metals that can poison the marine environment and leach into groundwater,” said Newsom.

According to Newsom, researchers at San Diego State University have found that chemicals found in just one filtered cigarette butt can kill all living fish in a one liter bucket of water.

While the fee looked strong in its first reading on Monday, it could still be stomped out by the complete Board next week at its decisive vote.

Photo Credit: fragglerawker_03 via flickr under Creative Commons License

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Senator Harry Reid announce plans to fast-track commercial-scale solar power development on public lands.

In a plan announced on Tuesday, federal agencies will work with western leaders to designate tracts of U.S. public lands in the West as prime zones for utility-scale solar energy development; fund environmental studies; open new solar energy permitting offices, and; speed reviews of industry proposals.

Under the zoning portion of the initiative, 24 tracts of Bureau of Land Management land located in six western states, known as Solar Energy Study Areas, would be evaluated for their environmental and resource suitability for commercial-scale solar energy production. Those areas selected would be available for projects capable of producing 10 or more megawatts of electricity. The Solar Energy Study Areas (maps) located in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah encompass about 670,000 acres.

Speaking alongside Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Secretary Salazar vowed to have 13 “commercial-scale” solar projects under construction by the end of 2010. He set a goal of producing a total of 100,000 megawatts of solar electricity.
Read the rest of this entry »

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is known to most outside his home state as a leading denier of anthropogenic global warming, going as far as calling it the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.” Wow, them’s fightin’ words. So not surprisingly, Inhofe has come out swinging in the wake of the recent passage in the House of Representative of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill.

What is a little surprising is how Inhofe doesn’t appear to learn any lessons from his past adventures in list building, scandal and fear mongering, and character assassination. Inhofe is either really not very bright, or purposely and cynically deceitful. Either option isn’t pretty.

Read the rest of this entry »

Every several years the power of Big Agriculture is evident when the Farm Bill is renegotiated, promising untold billions to the agriculture sector in the form of subsidies, incentives, research grants, and other programs.

Big Ag wielded its mighty stick again in the weeks leading up to the passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. A number of representatives led by House Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn) withheld support of the bill until control of future agricultural offsets for the upcoming cap and trade markets was wrested away from the EPA (the preferred choice of environmentalists) and given to the more farmer-friendly USDA. Also heavily involved in the lobbying for more agriculture-specific provisions in Waxman-Markey were some of Big Ag’s most powerful players, including heavyweights like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and Dupont.

One of the key areas that the USDA has taken control of in Waxman-Markey is the design and delivery of agriculture-based offset projects. Authorities in both the US and Canada have long recognized the importance of the agriculture sector in meeting national greenhouse gas emission reductions. Understandably, farmers have been eagerly anticipating the additional revenues coming their way from offset projects in cap and trade markets.

There are a number of agricultural project types that are being touted for generating offset credits, including:

• reduced tillage / no-tillage
• afforestation of marginal farmlands
• nitrogen fertilizer management
• improved manure management
• livestock feed management (dairy, swine)
• anaerobic digesters
• biomass energy
• energy efficiency upgrades of facilities

A number of the potential agriculture offset project types are robust, defensible, and easily measured, particularly those involving energy generation (digesters, biomass energy) and energy conservation. But in a classic example of ‘not all offsets are created equal’, there is the potential for a huge quality gap between the robust credits and those that are harder to measure, monitor, and verify.

Conservation tillage practices (reduced till or no-till) are used by farmers to introduce a number of benefits to the soil, including improved fertility and reduced erosion. A number of studies have also shown that conservation tillage increases the sequestration of carbon in the soil. One study conducted at The Ohio State University estimated that U.S. farmers could store 288 million tons of carbon in their soil every year, which represents 17% of American GHG emissions.

The recent actions of Big Ag suggest that it will make every effort necessary to get conservation tillage approved as an allowable offset project – the number of farmers and acres that stand to benefit are simply too great to pass by. Yet a number of contradictory studies have been published in recent years that question the scientific validity of using tillage practices for offset credits.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh state that increased soil carbon storage introduced by conservation tillage could be counterbalanced by increases in nitrous oxide emissions from the soil, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. They state that “the promotion of carbon credits for the no-till system before we have better quantification of its net greenhouse gas balance is naïve.” Meanwhile, a study by the USDA and University of Minnesota concludes that: “though there are other good reasons to use conservation tillage, evidence that it promotes C sequestration is not compelling.”

When you consider that tillage-based offset projects are difficult to accurately measure and routinely monitor (in addition to the contradictory science), it will be very interesting to see how much appeal these credits will have in the emerging cap-and-trade markets.

I am in the business of recommending offset credits to businesses that need to buy them either to meet future regulatory requirements or voluntary programs. In all likelihood I would never recommend a client invest in tillage-based offset credits – there are just too many questions surrounding them. And given the amount of potential acreage that could be signed up to no-till contracts if they are approved as an allowable offset for use in cap and trade, what impact will this risky carbon credit method have on the overall GHG inventory of the nation?

Image: jimmedia at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

Everyone knows the dark and dangerous side of the tobacco industry. The ill effects of cigarettes on the health of smokers, non-smokers, and the environment are well established. So is it fair or ethical for such a heinous and disgusting product to promote eco-friendly improvements to its packaging?

This is precisely what has happened recently with one of Canada’s leading cigarette brands, du Maurier. Du Maurier is using a more sustainable grade of paper for the outer cardboard packaging and they have removed the traditional inside foil liners with ones made of paper. To promote these green initiatives, du Maurier invested in a full-page color advertisement in a major Canadian magazine.

While it seems laughable that a tobacco company would be trying to paint itself with a shade of green, does this constitute greenwashing?

Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment said: “Is it green washing? Yes.” According to the ‘Seven Sins of Greenwashing’, the closest sin that du Maurier might be guilty of is the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils. This is where an environmental claim makes consumers feel ‘green’ about a product that is lacking in environmental benefits.

Obviously cigarettes are lacking in environmental benefits. But was the intent of the advertisement to trick people into thinking they were improving the environment by smoking du Maurier cigarettes? Doubtful. My guess is that they are trying to convince existing smokers to try their brand because of their green actions, basically saying ‘if you are going to partake in this senseless habit you might as well use one with green packaging’. Maybe they did some research and found there are enough smokers out there with an environmental conscience to warrant this advertisement.

If they truly are just promoting their recent green packaging without trying to pass off cigarettes as a green product, the greenwashing angle might be unfounded. Yet all of these issues may soon become irrelevant, as wheels are in motion to close the Canadian tobacco advertising loophole that allows ads like this to continue to be published.

Image: SuperFantastic at flickr under a CC License

Stephen Boles is co-founder of Kuzuka, a marketplace website that brings a new level of convenience and confidence to carbon offset customers and provide consulting services to organizations that want to assess and reduce their carbon footprint.

President says cost to average American in ten years will be equivalent to one postage stamp per day

Invoking the now-familiar messages heard throughout both his campaign and much of his presidency, like growing new jobs, moving off foreign sources of energy and building a clean energy economy, President Obama implored the U.S. Senate to move forward with a version of the Waxman-Markey climate bill passed by the House of Representatives on Friday.

“My call to every senator, as well as to every American, is this,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address, “We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth.”

Mr. Obama focused on the passage of Waxman-Markey in his address despite reportedly having already recorded an address focusing on health care legislation. Watch it: Read the rest of this entry »

As developed nations juggle with the numbers attempting to dodge the issue of agreement on ambitious carbon emissions cuts, the Scottish government has unveiled plans to cut the country’s carbon emissions by a staggering 42 percent, more than the 40 percent recommendation given by IPCC.

This is the most ambitious emissions reduction goal adopted by any country thus far, Germany has plans to 40 its emissions by 40 percent while Britain formally adopted a 34 percent reduction goal this April. Scotland, with its strong renewable energy infrastructure and bold plans to expand the same, has raised the bar even further.

In the recent weeks the developed countries have been in the line of fire of the green groups as they proposed disappointing emission reduction goals. Completely ignoring the IPCC recommendations of 25-40 percent reductions by 2020, Japan and Russia proposed cutting their respective emissions by merely 8 and 10-15 percent. These are only just better than the Kyoto Protocol goals which bind them to cut their emissions by 5-6 percent by 2012 from 1990 levels.

The driving engine behind this highly ambitious goal is the strong renewable energy infrastructure of Scotland. The Scottish government has unveiled numerous clean energy projects in the recent years which has helped the nation make the transition from fossil fuels to clean fuels. Read the rest of this entry »

Last week’s confirmation of climate change by the White House has only further raised the stakes for the Arctic. As detailed in former posts, one of the significant effects of our changing climate is the thinning of the ice pack in the Arctic, and the subsequent opening of the Northwest Passage. As the Northwest Passage opens, so too will we see an upsurge in the demand for shipping and the rush to access oil, gas, and mineral resources. [More...]

Significantly for observers, commercial fleets are beginning to view the Northwest Passage as a viable option for getting from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

“The ice is more favourable than in past decades,” said Capt. Georges Tousignant of Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping, “It’s navigable, it’s not that high-risk.”

And it’s not just Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping that is interested in navigating the Northwest Passage, the Canadian Coast Guard has seen an increase in the number of ships that entered the Northwest Passage. The longer that good shipping conditions continue, the more companies that will view the Passage as a viable transit route.

Unfortunately for the polar bears and infrastructure built reliant on permanent ice in the north, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that ice melt rates have increased. In May of 2009, ice melted at a rate of about 54,000 square kilometers per day throughout the Arctic. Average May ice melt has traditionally been closer to 47,000 kilometers per day.

The implications of all this ice melt is that similar to the long-term melting of permafrost, there will be less of the dangerous multi-year ice that impedes shipping every year. And therefore every year there will be increased shipping, and increasing attention to the viability of the Northwest Passage.

With increasing attention being paid to the Northwest Passage, watch for its status under international law to become a point of contention along with other northern concerns such sovereignty and related territorial claims.

Image: ashatsea (Creative Commons)

The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club today launched a new television ad “amplifying President Obama’s call “for Congress to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The ad employs video from the President’s Tuesday press conference, in which he made the case for clean energy and expressed support for the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

The ad, relying simply on the words of the President, stands in stark contrast to the fear-laden ad released on Monday by the Newt Gingrich-led and billionaire-sponsored American Solutions for Winning the Future.

“The President’s voice is the most powerful, but he is only one of the millions of Americans who want to move to a 21st Century sources of clean, American energy,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said in a release. “In 30 years in Washington, the coalition that has formed in support of this bill is one of the most powerful I’ve ever seen because the vote in question is the most critical we’ve ever faced.”