Outcome of Copenhagen Climate Summit

The leaders of the most powerful nations came together in Copenhagen to draw up a treaty on how to address climate change. Depending on individual opinion and individual political agendas, the outcome could be viewed as "moderate' at best. Environmental Justice Groups and NGO's focusing on climate change reduction were likely disappointed that the treaty did not enforce a legally binding commitment. However, the leaders decided to "take note" of the accord -- which is still progress when considering the political climate only a few years ago.

In retrospect, I believe the world is turning in the right direction. Change is here, but any significant change comes with due time. Everyone knows that most things that change immediately do not last. We can be thankful that this change is happening, albeit slowly. Although the Copenhagen agreement is not legally binding, the energy devoted to Copenhagen and the counterpart climate talks and conferences smacks of a new tune across the world. There is now a massive audience of people and new companies and organizations that are devoted to changing the way they live and use energy. Many nations are already pursuing their own cap and trade systems and encouraging tax subsidies so that polluters will be forced to reduce their carbon footprint.

Most Comprehensive DataBase of Renewable Energy Incentives by State

This is one of the BEST databases I've seen on renewable energy incentives per State.

http://www.dsireusa.org/

NYT Article: "Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water "

The next big issue of our generation = water. Water purification, water security, and water scarcity are all interrelated to important infrastructure and development goals for our generation. According to the latest alternative energy article in the NYT, we are already seeing an urgent need for water in order to move forward with generating energy from solar farms.

Please come to the Human Countdown in Central Park this Sunday November 20th, 2009

Please come to this event called "Human Countdown" this Sunday, September 20, to bring attention to fighting climate change on the eve of the UN Climate Summit, when world leaders and the international media will descend on New York.

Thousands of people will come to Central Park to form the shape of a giant earth moving through a human hourglass sculpture.

DESERTEC - New Concept for the future

I just heard about this concept: using the energy created by solar panels built in the desert to supply energy to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This is a huge project that still needs support and funding, but the rewards are enormous: creation of new jobs in both Europe and North Africa, and incredible economic growth in both regions, and a sustainable renewable energy resource that will create more energy for the electrical grid in these countries. If you want to learn more about this project, please check their website: http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/

Scientific American - "Chinese and American utilities to cooperate in capturing carbon from coal"

The US and China are collaborating efforts in order to burn coal more cleanly and protect the atmosphere from the poisonous Greenhouse Gas emissions. Their methods include the popular "carbon capture and storage technology. China has been notorious for its addiction to building new coal plants and burning this dirty fuel into the atmosphere and emitting tons of carbon emissions into the air. This is big for China and also the US because both countries are big players in this controversial fuel source.
While the cost of carbon capture and storage technology is huge, these companies are now factoring in the future cost of paying for excessive carbon emissions in the atmopshere with the passage of a more aggressive carbon tax or cap and trade scheme and realizing that investing in technologies now may prove financially smart for them in the near future.

According to SCIAM: "the U.S. gets roughly 50 percent of its electricity from coal, while China gets more than 70 percent of its power from coal".

Great Website for EcoSystem Living

Check out this website: http://awesome.good.is/ecosystem/#/i

Play videos of real stories in the following categories:
Energy
Education
Sustenance
Earth
Flora & Fauna
Education

E&E's analysis of the positions of the 100 senators on climate legislation, based on interviews with members.

Click on the PDF "Download Analysis" to see the breakdown.

Senate and the Climate Chnage Bill...

The Senate plays a KEY role in the conclusion of the climate change bill 's passage. Several pro Climate Senators have gotten together to form committees that will encourage support for climate change legislation. I am earnestly awaiting the outcome of this controversial bill and am hoping that the Senate will use good judgement and pass the bill. Stay tuned for further developments.

ExxonMobil Invests $600 Million on Algae

Exxon Mobile, normally opposed to spearheading the research efforts on renewable energy methods recently invested 600 million on R&D for algae-based biofuels. Exxon Mobile is collaborating with the company "Synthetic Genomics" (http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/) and the research is likely to continue for a period of five - six years. This is exciting, and I look forward to learning about the new developments.

Sandbag - Real Action on Climate Change

http://www.sandbag.org.uk/

Sandbag, a climate campaign group argues for the reduction of carbon emission permits. Historically dirty producers have been given allowances as a result of lobbying agencies and pressure from companies. Sandbag argues against giving out these "free" or "hot air" allowances, and advocates for limiting the number of permits that are on the market. If we reduce the number of permits, we force polluters to come up with internal methods of reducing carbon emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/20/emissionstrading-carbon-emissions

G-8 Summit Updated on Climate Change

The G-8 Summit of the 8 most powerful leaders in the developed world met for three days to discuss a number of global items, and one in particular was climate change. Obama and others could not come to an agreement over reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and found themselves in a gridlock. Each country had their own agendas to deal with and struggled to agree on a standard goal in combating climate change.

Further, the unrest in China called for the Chinese leader to return home to attend the domestic concerns of his country, which made the possibility of further talks almost impossible. China is a huge player in this game and without their full participation, coming to a G-8 agreement will be put on hold.

US - Russia Nuclear Agreement

The US and Russian Administration both came to an agreement to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in their respective countries. This is a step in the right direction for Russia after their notorious military conflict with Georgia last year. Obama's future goal is to eliminate nuclear threat globally, and is particularly interested in reducing Iran and North Korea's nuclear weapons.

NYT Article "Betraying the Planet" by Paul Krugman

The House passed the Waxman Markey Bill on Friday yet there were a number of people in the House who fiercely argued that climate change was not a threat, and offered dissenting remarks against the majority. It's quite comical that there are still a number of people who really think that climate change has no adverse or negative effects on our planet. How much more proof do these guys need? And I realize that these politicians have to protect the fossil fuel producing interests within their respective States, but they arent fooling anyone at this point. There is an overwhelming amount of eveidence from scientists, researchers, and analysts who have actual proof that climate change is a huge threat to our planet. In fact, I think any person whether educated or not, can get access to this proof. Do we have to constantly showcase the number of risks and destructive results of climate change or can we just all come to an agreement that this is reality.
In response to those arguing against Waxman Markey on cap and trade, we should still be wary of the allowance permits that can be given to historically dirty fossil fuel producers. We dont want to make the same mistake as the EU ETS.

Cornell Club Event: “The Ramifications of Carbon Mitigation Paradigms: Can the Public Win when Politics Overshadow the Science of Engineering?”

As an alumn of Cornell University, I get access to all speaking events at the Cornell Club, and recently there has been a lot of talk about green energy/environmental issues. Yesterday, I attended the talk "The Ramifications of Carbon Mitigation Paradigms: Can the Public Win when Politics Overshadow the Science of Engineering?” by a Cornell Engineer (who has worked as a Power Plant Developer) named Adam Victor. Adam Victor currently is the President of TransGas Energy Systems, LLC.
He spoke in length about the possible threats that can occur from the failed US evironmental policies and the past Administration's inability to act on their enviornmental agendas towards curbing climate change. In particular, he spoke about New York City as the place where possible catastrophic events can and will occur, if we dont make REAL changes in our legislation. He touched on the point that we have become a country that argues against building any sort of power plants (iindistrial plants/power plant production/carbon sequestration plants) close to areas where we work, live, eat or breathe. He identified several key projects in the city that were passed up because of community protest. His response makes sense. What difference does the opinion of a residential community make when it comes to the larger national and even global community towards creating new plants that use energy waste and recycle it as renewable power, or creating power plants that capturing carbon.

You can learn more about Adam Victor's ideas by reading the latest New Yorker article about his endeavors: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/12346/

2009 Top Sustainable Stocks

The following list of companies are leading the way towards a future of sustainable energy either by gmaking their internal operations "green" or by growing their business based on innovative green technologies.

The 2009 SB20 List
Company Name Ticker Sector Country First Solar Nasdaq: FSLR Solar USA Vestas VWS.CO; VWDRY.PK Wind Denmark Gamesa GAM.MC; GCTAF.PK Wind Spain Ormat NYSE: ORA Geothermal USA/Israel WaterFurnace WFI.TO; WFIFF.PK Geothermal USA
Renewable Energy Telvent Git, SA. Nasdaq: TLVT
Smart Grid Spain
Novozymes NZYM.CO; NVZMY.PK Industrial/Ethanol Denmark
Westport Innovations Nasdaq: WPRT;
Transport Canada WPT.TO
Pure Technologies PUR.V Water Canada
Chipotle Mexican Grill NYSE: CMG Corporate USA
Naturex SA NRX.PA Food France
United Natural Nasdaq: UNFI Food USA
Plant Health Care PHC.L; PLHCF.PK Agriculture UK
Bendigo and BEN.ASX Corporate Pioneer/ Australia Adelaide Bank Finance
Novo Nordisk NYSE: NVO Corporate Pioneer/ Denmark Pharmaceuticals Google Nasdaq: GOOG Corporate Pioneer/ USA Technology IBM NYSE: IBM Corporate Pioneer/ USA Technology
Herman Miller Nasdaq: Corporate USA
MLHR Green Building Philips NYSE: PHG
Green Building
Timberland NYSE: TBL Corporate Pioneer/ USA

Investing in Green Energy: What the Industry Experts are Saying

In the link: http://news.zdnet.com/2422-13748_22-302503.html, you can listen to some industry experts discuss their ideas about investing in green technology, carbon management, and smart grids.

Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade vs. Plan C

Since this is the most hotly debated climate change topic both globally and here in the United States, I decided to dive a bit deeper into the cap and trade vs. carbon tax debate. While I am a huge advocate of creating some sort of cap and trading scheme (cap and auction in particular), there are a lot of critics that point out the obvious problems with such a market. Before dissecting the multitude of cons, let me first speak briefly about the argument for cap and trade. The pros of the cap and trading scheme are numerous: creating a market, making carbon caps transparent, creating new jobs, etc. But the strongest claim is that it favors a long term solution as opposed to a short term fix politically, as opposed to a tax that has to be politically renewed with every new Administration. A carbon tax is not a long term promise, but only a promise for Now. Although there will be new laws and regulations that will have to keep controls on this scheme, the main point is that its not as easy to dissolve as lets say a carbon tax. The Clean Air Act worked well for the cap and trade scheme for Sulfur Dioxide (http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085), so as long as we dont make the same mistakes as the EU (granting mega allowances to big time pollutants), we can really make a difference in carbon emissions in this country.

In opposition are those who propose that a cap and scheme is costly and almost impossible to administer given the amount of players and regulations that are needed in order for the scheme to work.

One author from Yale360 proposes another answer to the carbon emission problem -- making renewable energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Although this idea has a lot of loopholes, its still a good idea. We need to start thinking out of the box - maybe these two options are not the only answers to this global problem.

NYT Article: in 2008, we spent more money investing in renewable energy generation than on fossil fuel generation.

In the NYT article, "Clean Energy Funding Trumps Fossil Fuels", the author states that global investors spent 56% on renewable energy generation in 2008. The Kyoto Protocol, and the cap and trade scheme developed in the EU and other countries abroad have created the necessary enthusiasm and urgency for investors to start thinking about renewable energy as the new primary source of energy. Although this was the first year that renewable energy generation investment surpassed fossil fuel generation investment, this phenomenon predicts that similar trends will follow in the coming years. It will take a long time before fossil fuel sources are phased out of the marketplace so renewable energy sources have a long way to go in terms of replacing fossil fuel generation. Yet overall, this is great news for green activists. A change in generation source investment strategy means that a plethora of changes are in store for the global green energy community.

Recently read the NYT article: "Pipe Leak at Nuclear Plant Raises Concerns"

In yesterday's posting, I spoke about the recent speaking engagement at Columbia University with Peter Lyons, one of the Commissioners at the NRC. He talked in great detail about the advantages of nuclear energy, so this article today grabbed my attention. There has been a lot of attention given to the "carbon neutrality" of nuclear power, but the focus should really be on the safety of a nuclear plant. One disaster could lead to a destruction of immense proportion, so we must focus on this issue with the utmost concern.

The NYT article talks about a leak in the pipes at one of the nuclear plants in upstate N (Buchanan, N.Y.).

My brothers recent article: "Resurrecting a Green Babylon: How Solar Energy Can Help Build Iraq" by Rami Turayhi

Please read this op-ed piece written by my brother, another energy enthusiast.

Discussion at Columbia: "Examining A Carbon-Free Alternative" - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner, Dr. Peter Lyons - April 29th

Yesterday I attended a discussion by Peter Lyons, one of the four Commissioners of the NRC. Peter Lyons focused his discussion on the NRC's role as a regulatory agency for nuclear power reactors at the commercial and civilian level. According to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the NRC's duties include being able to "assure adequate protection of public health and safety in operation of nuclear generation". Other legislation, such as the National Environmental Policy Act is important in recognizing the duties of the NRC. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) is another agency that helps "promote excellence in the power of nuclear generation". Unlike the NRC, which has the authority to pull licenses and stop a nuclear plant from operating, the INPO has other ways of enforcing its rules. For instance, the INPO is the sole authority that decides the rates of insurance numbers for all operating plants, so complying within their guidelines is beneficial to the bottom line for all plants.

As most of you can imagine, building new nuclear plants is a daunting task. We have not seen a lot of new plant construction in the United States, and the last permit was issued decades ago in 1978. There are 104 plants operating in the US currently, and 120 plant orders have been canceled. So there are MORE plants canceled than even operating in existence in the US. Given the difficult process and approval schemes with regulatory, legal, and financing nuclear plants, it is extremely difficult to actually complete a nuclear plant and bring it online. In the nuclear generation community, it is well known that the process is extremely rigid and the chance of plants withdrawing midway through a project is the almost generally expected.

Many critics of nuclear energy say that the issues of safety, and nuclear waste are not worth the benefits of this carbon free energy source. However, in France and other countries, many of the nuclear plants reprocess their nuclear waste. This issue is yet to be decided in the United States. Other issues that come up are capital costs, project finance, and investments. Is there cash available to build these plants? And lastly, nuclear plants face Regulatory enforcements that they must comply with.

Renewable energy has become a popular topic in the Untied States and abroad. A lot of people are asking about nuclear power as an alternative energy source. We all know that France is a huge nuclear player and considering nuclear generation is carbon neutral (it does not produce any carbon emissions), many energy companies are fighting for the right to promote nuclear power as a renewable energy source. Other energy sources have a high carbon footprint, and given the cap and trade scheme that may possibly play out this next year in the United States, this could be a huge selling point. Peter Lyons talks about a possible nuclear Renaissance emerging worldwide as the public tries to understand the pros and cons of nuclear power when comparing it to other types of power generation.

The challenges in the future of nuclear power are 1) technology (both current and digital), 2) Communications, and 3) Workforce. In the Technology department, we have very few digital monitors, and the government is very cautious in allowing digital control systems which introduces a new set of failures. In regards to Communications, we have several security issues with nuclear power and its challenging to inform the public without giving away some information that may be problematic for national security. The question remains, "how do we communicate to the topics of risk management, risk analysis, and radiation risks" in a world of potential international threats? And the third topic of discussion, is the workforce. The nuclear engineers in the world today are aging, and we are going to need a lot of new and enthusiastic talent to help lead the nuclear generation field. Our current system in the US is outdated and inefficient. The power plants were built in an earlier time and era and we face several challenges and difficulties as we try to reform legislation and technologies in preparing to build new plants.

The latest response from Congress: Waxman-Markey Climate Bill

The House has been trailing the Senate in talks of the cap and trade emissions scheme thus far, so it's refreshing to see the debate heat up in the House of Representatives in 2009 with Congressman Waxman. 218 members of the House have to pass in favor of the bill for it to move forward. It seems very likely that such a bill will pass with the support of Nancy Pelosi, the President, and the overwhelming Democratic House of Representatives. The negative effects of climate change and the need for a cap and trade scheme are important matters in our nation and we must lead the world towards containing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. I cannot wait to see what happens this year.

Videos from the Wall Street Green Trading Summit

Please check this link: http://www.global-change.com/content/videos-2009-wall-street-green-trading-summit

I recently interviewed some of the attendees at the Wall Street Green Trading Summit in NYC, and their responses can be heard when clicking on the video link above.

Interviews are with the following:

David Kirkpatrick, Partner, SJF Ventures
Arthur O'Donnell, Executive Director of the Center for Resource Solutions
Josh Margolis, Co-CEO, CantorCO2e
James Rhodes, Chief Operating Officer. GE/AES GHG Services, LLC

Deforestation - The Amazon Rainforest

I spent the last week in Buenos Aires, Argentina and came back with the realization that I may never get a chance to see some of the most beautiful historic landsites in South America. I've read a lot about Peru's Machu Picchu and Brazil's Amazon ranforest and I always planned to make a trip to visit these two sites, but with work and a lack of vacation time, my dream may never be realized for two reasons. One, I heard that Machu Picchu may close down because of all the tourists that are slowly destroying its landscape. And two, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest is rampant, which is disconcerting for a variety of reasons. The rainforest is one of the top free sources that captures carbon emissions throughout the world, and destroying it would mean that there would be an exponential increase in carbon emissions worldwide. Further, the act of deforestation emits carbon into the atmosphere, so in essence destroying the rainforest by deforestation is like winding a clock backwards.
According to the Huffington Post, new satellite dishes will keep track of the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest so environmental agents and government officials will have a better way to deal with this type of destruction.

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

Empire State Building is going Green!

New York City is planning on reducing the Empire State Building's energy consumption by 38% a year by 2013. Mayor Bloomberg's PlanNYC 2030 is a rather intensive plan to make New York City energy efficient. Some more information about this plan can be found at this site: http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml.

Other buildings are going green as well. The reports about the new BofA green building in NYC caught some press earlier this year: http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/update-bank-of-america-tower-greenest-skyscraper-in-us.html

In this link, http://www.greenbuildingsnyc.com/, you can find a number of different green building projects in the greater New York area.

Global Warming

The New Administration is prepared to mandate a federal cap and trade program in 2010.While the cap and trade will be on all GHG emissions, namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulphur , the focus is on carbon dioxide - CO2. Carbon Dioxide is the GHG that is MOST responsible for global warming, so carbon allowances and carbon permits are the terms that the media keeps talking about.

GHG comes from a number of different sources. Here are some of sources for the most common human induced GHG emissions:

1.fossil fuels in cars
2.factories
3.electricity production.
4.methane released from landfills
5.agriculture - and the digestive systems of grazing animals
6.nitrous oxide from fertilizers
7.gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes
8.the loss of forests that would otherwise store CO2

Video Game for the social activits

There is a new "social awareness video game" called Games for Change. This concept basically uses a video game to address issues like poverty, human rights, global conflict and climate change. I heard about it at a Wall Street Green Trading Conference.

http://www.gamesforchange.org/ourwork

Join, play, check it out!

No Republican Support for the new global warming bill

Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts put together a draft on global warming this week to address climate change in the Untied States. The bill proposes to place a cap on Greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a rather aggressive approach in the short term. Obama's plan for climate change was to propose a bill that would reduce GHG gases by 80% by the year 2050. I think these two representatives are on the right track because we certainly need to act sooner rather than later. The cost of reducing GHG in the world only increases each year that we allow for unlimited emissions with no cost.

The Spanish island of El Herro - Energy Independent

The above video is a documentary of the Spanish island of El Herro. According to BBC, this will be one of the first places to exist solely on renewable energy sources. Energy independence and an aversion to oil will make this island attractive to long term sustainability. This concept is so necessary. I think all countries, cities, regions strive to become energy independent. Thomas Friedman talks in great lengths about the Danes ability to source a major portion of its energy on wind farms. There are many countries who were severely impacted as a result of the 1973 Oil Crisis and only a few places have reacted to this event by striving to become energy independent. Another location that is creating the very first carbon neutral zone is Masdar City in Abu Dhabi. (http://www.masdaruae.com/en/home/index.aspx)I think its quite calculating that Midde Eastern countries with oil are investing heavily in renewable energy sources. They seem to have the right attitude towards where the rest of the world is going.

Ethanol. A sustainable energy source or a big mistake?

I've been hearing a lot of arguments about ethanol production as a source of fuel energy and I decided to do some of my own investigation. In the book "Plan B" by Lester Brown, the topic of ethanol production is heavily criticized as a new source for energy. The author believes that crop use should be solely for food in a world of extreme poverty and starvation. He also believes that there should be more of an emphasis on true renewable energy sources like wind, and solar production instead of ethanol. Ethanol production may lead us away from the main objective in this quest for long term solutions with alternative energy.

I recently read the article by Newt Gingrich "ETHANOL, PRO AND CON: New energy source means brighter future". Last April, when this article was written, we saw a huge unprecedented jump in oil prices. SUV drivers and American drivers in general were angered by this sudden increase and the need for an alternative source of energy became a topic of importance. The idea of sourcing energy from ethanol production is a hotly debated topic this year. The last Administration approved the use of ethanol as an renewable fuel and allowed for an increase in ethanol production. Newt argues that the ethanol that we currently use today will be replaced with a more efficient type of ethanol fuel and generally praises this new source of energy.

In the PBS website, Jim Lehrer conducts an interview about Ethanol production (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june09/mixedyield_01-28.html. In this interview, a representative from Climate Central and an Iowa farmer both talk about the pros and cons of ethanol. For farmers, this corn crop turned fuel has helped raise revenues and returns. According to the article, "In 2008, about one-third of all corn produced in the U.S. was turned into ethanol". Some scientists believe that this move to turn corn into ethanol has left a lot of unanswered questions for the future of land and farming. The overwhelming amount of corn production could mean dangerous consequences in the future. All the land clearing for the corn production causes an increasing amount of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. This will also create market problems when the US switches to a cap and trade system. Brazil is one of the top producers in ethanol production, and they are chopping down forests in order to plant this profitable crop. In the short run, we have solved a big problem with oil prices, but in the long term we may look back and regret that we have covered a wound with band aid. Ethanol production may have negative long term consequences, but it certainly does solve a current problem.

Another consideration; with the dangerous amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere, we are noticing a rise in global temperatures. This could lead to a reduction in photosynthesis, prevention of pollination, and eventually lead to crop dehydration. The effect of global warming is most problematic for corn, which is another point to keep in mind when assessing whether ethanol fits into the solution as an alternative fuel source.

Space Based Solar Power

Please see the link for "Powering the Planet: Space-based Solar Power,", produced by the Futures Channel.

http://www.thefutureschannel.com/dockets/realworld/space_based_solar_power/

Beyond Cap and Trade

According to a recent paper titled "Cap and Trade is Not Enough: Improving U.S. Climate Policy" (click on title for the link), the authors argue that the United States government needs to work faster and harder in solidifying long term legislation that will physically reduce carbon emissions in the future. Although we have yet to pass a mandatory cap and trade system in the US, the Obama administration is promising that such a trading platform will begin next year, in 2010. My colleagues were frustrated with this decision to hold off on a trading scheme, but the authors in this paper are not necessarily frustrated with this carbon cap postponement policy.

The authors of this paper move past the argument of cap and trade, and argue for a long term strategic plan of action in reducing carbon emissions. There are a number of different solutions that these authors suggest, and their prescriptions are focused on three main areas: electric power, building design and appliances, and automobiles. I agree with this paper for many reasons. We cannot solve the carbon emission crisis only by enforcing cap and trade. Although some cities, like NYC are taking their own initiative in retrofitting buildings, and making appliances and buildings more energy efficient, this is by no means a long term federal policy. These decisions can come and go with each President, governor, or mayor. This is the end of the era for the toothless tiger. We need some teeth in our policies.

EPA proposal: Report GHG emissions

The EPA just poropsed a rule that suppliers of almost 85-90% of GHG emissions in the country would have to report the amount of GHG they emit per year. According to the EPA's press release, the draft rule would require about 13,000 facilities to report greenhouse gas emissions.

This comes at a necessary time in our country, as we prepare ourselves for a new Cap and Trade market. The EPA must think ahead of Europe and have organized, detailed information when dealing with the new carbon offset market. In Europe, the first phase of Kyoto did not accomplish what was intended; they did not reduce the amount of carbon emissions as they sought out to do, which has made the EU anxious to start a methodical system. It would be in our best interest to make this proposal a mandatory requirement for suppliers to count GHG emissions, because this would solve the initial problem of figuring out the exact number of dirty polluters.

Free Energy Trade Subscriptions

Please click on this link: http://energyvortex.tradepub.com/

There are a number of free trade publications that you can choose from.

Sales of Hybrid Cars Decline

The hybrid car model was a hot commodity when the gasoline prices were at its highest price last summer. SUV owners were made a mockery of when they went to fill up their cars. Consumers started trading in their gas guzzling cars for a new hybrid model in order to save money on gas in the long term.
It seems like the price of gas and the sale of the hybrid cars are proportional. When the price of gasoline falls, the sales of hybrid cars fall as well.
As the rate of joblessness increases and the economy tanks, the new hybrid car models are gathering dust in inventory. We are also seeing an increasing number of people switch to public transportation, which could also contribute to the decline in hybrid car sales.

My prediction: its only a matter of time before oil prices start creeping up again, and we all know what that means. The inefficient gas mileage cars will once again be thrown aside in favor the hybrid.

Natural Resources Defense Council put together A State by State "Coal Threat Report"

The list of the dirtiest 15 states are as follows:

1. Texas
2. South Dakota
3. Florida
4. Nevada
5. Montana
6. Illinois
7. South Carolina
8. Ohio
9. Wyoming
10. Michigan
11. Kentucky
12. Missouri
13. Wisconsin
14. Georgia
15. West Virginia

Interesting. Many of the historical swing states are on this "dirty coal list" list. Any relevance, or just a coincidence?
Florida
Ohio
Virginia

Carbon Offset Standards

The VCS was founded by The Climate Group, the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

I am investigating the concept of "carbon offsets" in the US market place. When a customer purchases carbon offsets so that they can become "carbon neutral", what type of carbon offset are they really purchasing. We need to understand what standards are used when purchasing a carbon offset. The VCS Association is in charge of the VCS Program and they are responsible for monitoring Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction projects, like carbon offsets.

There are different baselines when calculating carbon offsets. Listed below are some of the other methods that are currently approved under the Voluntary Carbon Offset Protocol.

1.) Clean Development Mechanism methodologies (used in the Kyoto Protocol) (http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html)

2.) California Climate Action Registry
(http://www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/project-protocols.html)

Other Standards include:
The Gold Standard and EPA Climate Leaders

US city is finally catching up to Europe's method of encouraging solar energy

In the New York Times article "Europe’s Way of Encouraging Solar Power Arrives in the U.S.", there is talk that a certain US city - Gainesville, FL is starting to follow the path of cities in Europe. The city officials of Gainesville decided to pass a mandatory feed in tariff for residential and businesses to develop solar panels on their rooftops and invest in other solar projects while the utilities pays them far more money per kwh than the standard electricity rate for this renewable energy generation. The utilities will have to bear the cost of the expensive renewable energy, so these customers will not be turned away by the expensive costs of installation.

According to Wikipedia, a FEED IN TARIFF is "an incentive structure to encourage the adoption of renewable energy through government legislation. The regional or national electricity utilities are obligated to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources at above market rates set by the government."

Obama's Energy Plan

We finally have a visionary in office, but he is getting sidetracked by different lobbyist groups and typical bureaucratic system inefficiencies. Obama's plan for energy independence is exactly what I've been hoping for, but he needs to keep the momentum moving. According to the website whitehouse.gov, Obama plans on reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Why can't we start this year? Creating a new market immediately would allow for new investment opportunities. It will give Americans hope that 2009 will not end in economic decline.
His administration wants to wait until 2010 to establish this new cap trading platform, which is highly disappointing. The US government needs to act fast, and the time is now. Countries in other parts of the world are already years ahead of our renewable energy development, and we are lagging in this global race to reduce carbon emissions.
And how can he promise that the creation of this new market is absolute in 2010? I want to see some mandates in place.

Nuclear Power - Country Comparison

The United States is reported to be the top supplier of Nuclear Energy in the world but this generation source only makes up about 1/5 of our country's energy supply for energy use.
Many European countries reacted to the Oil Crisis of 1970, and France's response was to invest in nuclear power. We all know about France's love for nuclear power, and this form of energy is still the top energy source for electricity in France.
Nuclear definitely has its pros: end of foreign dependence on oil, reduction in carbon emissions due (when comparing to fossil fuel sources). Cons: It still requires a lot of capital, real estate, transmission costs, and is environmentally dangerous. Nuclear energy is expensive because of all the waste it generates, although many companies are making cleaner, more efficient generators. I am still a stronger advocate for wind and solar generation, but this is still a very controversial and highly disputed topic.

Van Jones gets appointed as White House advisor

Van Jones, author of one of my favorite books "The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems" was recently asked to advise the Obama Administration on transitioning our present economy into a green economy. He focuses on the social aspect of the green movement, highlighting economic, demographic and labor into his assessment, which is refreshing and necessary. Many renewable advocates are only looking at this big picture, and he really focuses on a lot of the details, so I'm happy that he's involved with the transition.

McKinsey Debate: Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade

In an earlier posting, I talk about the different carbon cap policies. I am a huge advocate for the Cap and Trade system, except specifically, I believe that the "Cap and Dividend" system will work the best in the long term. Tax Credits don't seem to have the same affect on the economy or investment companies because there is no long term guarantee. If we create a market for carbon emissions, this will force companies to reduce carbon emissions and will encourage broad scale investment in renewable energy.

Website:
http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/the_debate_zone/carbon-tax-vs-cap-and-trade

Smart Grid

I first heard about the smart grid last year, and it keeps coming up as a favorite solution in our stance towards energy independence. At a recent NYC conference, I heard that many cities and states are already trying to challenge old inefficient energy systems. I know that NYC is building smart meters for commercial, residential and industrial buildings here in the city. But that's just a start.
Our government needs to focus on fixing the grid at a national level. We need Washington to make it a mandatory obligation, not just a proposed idea. The tech companies, lawmakers, utilities, and energy companies need to all get together and come up with a game plan on making this system work. We need the capital and the intelligence to move forward with this plan of action so that the old outdated grid can be replaced with a much more efficient and workable solution.

COP15 Copenhagen 2009

COP15 Copenhagen
Copenhagen will host the COP15 UN Summit in 2009 which is set up to deliver a new binding global climate agreement that will apply to the post-Kyoto period after 2012.

Hopefully, the United States will get up to speed with the rest of the developed world. We are the biggest consumers of energy in the world, and we cant seem to take the lead in curbing carbon emissions. We need to create a cap and trade market, and move away from the inconsisten tax credits. The Federal Government needs to create mandatory laws that will secure the long term prospect of renewable energy. After talking to solar and wind developers, I find that their biggest complaint is finding capital for their business. No one trusts the ebbs and flows of the US government. Eight years from now, many of these renewable energy developers could be in a losing game.

New Jobs for a Green Economy

According to the UN: “private sector would bring 85 per cent of the necessary financing and resources to the climate-change challenge." The following industries will grow as a result of the green movement:

1. solar energy
2. wind power
3. carbon trading
4. carbon capture & storage
5. carbon management
6. water management
7. waste management
8. biomass & biofuels
9. energy efficiency
10.consulting & engineering
11.green building

"Which country has the greenest bail-out?"

Which country has the greenest bail-out?

The enclosed link represents the amount of government spending on greening a country's economy all over the developed world. This chart is rather interesting because it compares our efforts to our neighbors in the move towards lowering carbon emissions. We have been consuming energy and spending it like no other country in the world, so why are other countries making more of an effort to relieve the globe of carbon emissions? It is our duty and our prerogative to lead the world by example. The United States needs to focus on this issue and create a green economy that would receive more attention than what is allotted in the latest Stimulus Package.

Green Business Directory NYC

http://www.madeinnyc.org/

This database has a listing of all the different green manufacturers and business service providers in New York City.

"New Grid for Renewable Energy Could Be Costly "

100 billion dollars. That's what analysts are saying would be the cost of developing a new transmission system to get all the new renewable energy sources onto the grid. While I think this is an absolute necessary solution for the United States, taxpayers and Congress are going to have a hard time passing mandates to make this new transmission system happen. We are running out of time, so I urge you all to write your Senators and Congressman. The time for change is now.
If the Federal government expects many states to increase the percentage of renewable energy to come onto the grid, we need to address the issue of our outdated transmission lines first. Before we start building all these expensive solar and wind farms, let's explore this idea further. What can we do to get the ball rolling on this?

NYT "Environmental Studies Enrollment Soars"

Education programs in environmental studies are on the rise. Obama certainly won our trust back in the field of renewable energy and environmental awareness. For awhile, it seemed like all the progress our country made was all in vain.
I think that all universities should make environmental and energy studies a focus in their course offerings and devise a new undergraduate major that focuses on environmental studies. I started to search for some energy programs at top universities but I came up with only a handful of stellar programs.

Wall Street Green Trading Summit - NYC April 1st & 2nd

http://www.wsgts.com/

Wall Street Green Trading Summit. April 1st and 2nd. This is going to be a great event for those interested in green investments, carbon finance, renewable energy, and clean tech.

Where NY stands on Energy&Oil and the Environment

http://www.ontheissues.org/states/NY_Energy_+_Oil.htm


http://www.ontheissues.org/states/NY_Environment.htm

BOOK REVIEW: Easy cure for global warming?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/11/entertainment/et-book11

Check out this article about the latest book I am promoting.

Please read this book: "Earth: The Sequel: The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming"

Check out this book: http://earththesequel.edf.org

I highly recommend this book. It was co authored by the President of the Environmental Defense Fund.

GE's EcoMagination

This demo of the smart grid technology is really cool, so I wanted to share. Just like a cellphone has on peak and off peak minutes, so does electricity.

We will one day be able to choose our electricity usage smartly and efficiently. If it costs more to use at a certain hour, we can adjust our energy usage wisely so that we can save money and use electricity more during off peak hours. Most people choose their cell phone plans wisely and are good about keep track of their minutes - so this system of smart grid systems will work just the same way, only we will have to keep track of how much kilowatts per hour we are spending.

NYCEDC Green Mapping Event

NYCEDC Green Mapping Event

February 17, 2009

The New York City Economic Development Corporation held a roundtable discussion this last Tuesday to discuss a mapping of green business developments in the New York City area. The discussion was moderated as an open dialogue format which was beneficial because we broke into several teams that were specific to our industry area and expertise. The forum consisted of key players in all industries which encouraged a flow of new ideas and strategies. This discussion will help answer questions for the NYC business, technology, and energy community. The EDC is now well-equipped with new ideas and pertinent information for a plan of action, which will be communicated on a broad scale throughout the city. Many of the industry representatives talked briefly about their specific growth areas and what would affect their business with the incoming wave of green sector development. They also discussed barriers to entry and comparative advantages that NYC may have in their efforts to green the city.

The NYCEDC divided the industries in the following green categories:
1. Renewables & Technology
2. Waste & Pollution Mitigation
3. Building Site Design
4. Consumer Goods
5. Financial Services
6. Other Planning and Enabling Services

Given the negative factors in the present economy, namely the recession, and the financial services sector meltdown, most of these industries are expecting a massive decrease of jobs in the city. However, NYC plans on a job increase this year due to the implementation of cap and trade legislation, and the development of green technologies and green companies with Bloomberg’s PlanNYC initiative.

Cap and Dividend - Latest theory on carbon cap policy.

I recently read Peter Barnes' book on carbon cap policy, and I wanted to write a cummulative piece on various carbon cap policies and why I think his choice is one of the best.

Why place a cap on carbon?
Placing a cap on carbon emissions will encourage carbon reduction in both the economy and in the atmosphere. The plan is for government to issue a number of permits for carbon producers in the United States. Every year, the government will reduce the amount of carbon emission permits. The reduced number of permits will make carbon more expensive and will thus increase the cost of carbon, and ultimately make it harder and harder for polluters to continue sustaining and growing their production of carbon. They will have no option but to invest in clean technologies, since there simply will not be a way for them to produce energy without complying with the new legislation. Any producer that goes over their limit will have to pay a high penalty tax, ensuring that the system is fair.

If we offer permits to historical producers for free, the coal/fossil fuel companies will in turn pass on the costs to the customers (the public) so the system will most likely hurt the poor and the middle class the most and will create a profit for the coal/fossil fuel companies. The oil/fossil fuel companies will reap profits, thus benefiting only the shareholders. However, the system of cap and trade is complex. Peter Barnes visits the different carbon cap policies.

Carbon Cap Policies – The Dilemma
The future generations will have to pay for the costs of dumping carbon into the atmosphere. The people who dump the carbon into the atmosphere, and the people that use the carbon are not charged for it. This system is unfair, and must be remedied by carbon cap policies.
High carbon prices are good for the atmosphere but reduces household incomes, and can hurt the poor the most. Because of this contradiction, we must set up a policy that will encourage renewable energy production and less carbon production while at the same time protecting household incomes. The poor and the middle class cannot suffer at the expense of the rich. In fact, most of the upper class and rich in this country are the ones who are consuming to most amount of energy.

According to http://www.capanddividend.org/?q=readfirst and http://www.onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2240
Carbon caps can work in two different ways 1) (downstream cap) where carbon enters the atmosphere through emitters, and (2) (upstream cap) where carbon enters the economy in the form of a fossil fuel through suppliers.
Carbon is too large a pollutant to cap by way of emitters. Therefore, we must cap according to suppliers. This is an easier system to administer because the cap would apply to a few hundred oil/fossil fuel companies.
A descending carbon cap will encourage utilities to invest in renewable energy, and less carbon producing plants. The automakers will encourage the creation of hybrid cars. Government will have to issue new policies in clean technology, smart grid and transmission systems, investment in mass transit, efficiency standards for transportation systems, rising renewable energy requirements. The government must also make it a priority to assist workers in the transition economy and offer green collar training.

What is the difference between the following carbon cap policies:
1. Cap and Grandfather or “Cap and Giveaway”
This policy would give the polluters hundreds of billions of dollars for many decades. Instead of selling or auctioning the permits, the government will issue free permits for historical polluters. Even in the present moment, coal companies are trying to build their plants as fast as possible so that they will be “grandfathered” into the system. As carbon caps keep decreasing every year, the consumers keep paying more for energy usage. The free permits will give these historical polluters (oil/fossil fuel companies) extra money as the permit value keeps increasing.
2. Cap and Auction
Permits are sold to polluters and the money is collected by the government. The government can use this money however it likes. The hope is that the government would redistribute this money in public programs that offer climate and environmental solutions, but there is no set guarantee. This will be a hard program to administer given the complexities and differences between different political parties. The money that is distributed to the government may be used in various ways.
3. Cap and Dividend or “Cap and Refund”
Permits are sold to polluters, and the money from these permits gets redistributed to all the citizens on a per capita basis. This is also known as a sky trust. The money will be put into a non profit trust fund and will ultimately be redistributed as equal dividends which will be deposited into accounts or sent as a check. This system is the most fair system for carbon cap policies. In other words everyone pays according to how much they burn and gets back what they save. If the price of energy goes up and you use a lot of energy, you may not gain as much as say, a poor person who hardly uses energy for their homes and cars. For the lower income households, the dividends would exceed what they pay in higher energy prices. Because of this, the poor will see a lot of returns. Since the poor have less money, the amount of money returned back to them will be a larger percentage of their disposable incomes.
According to some studies, the bottom 40% of households would come out ahead, the middle 20% would break even, and the top 40% of households would have a loss.
(An example of this system is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which for 25 years has paid equal dividends from state oil to every Alaskan resident.)

What is wrong with the Cap and Grandfather system:
European Union set up a carbon capping system that failed. Their system was a straight cap and trade system – “cap and giveaway” which gave away permits for free to the historically dirty polluters. Many polluters have reaped record profits which will only make shareholders more profitable and no one else.
What happened -->
1. Issued only to the largest polluters and not all polluters - so less than half of the carbon in the economy was calculated in
2. The bigger companies used political influence and lobbyist groups to force their politicians to give away more permits than necessary
3. All the energy companies who received free permits raised their prices and kept the profits for themselves
4. Carbon offsets from other parts of the world outside of the European Union are acceptable in establishing carbon count. In other words, companies do not have to lower their individual amounts of carbon. Offsets should not be counted against permits.
Policies looked at now
Many US senators are asking for a similar cap and giveaway systems. There have been several policies that encourage free permits for historic polluters. Other policies offer carbon cap downstream policies instead of upstream, which will contradict the effectiveness of limiting carbon in the long run. The point of the policy is to make carbon expensive enough so that companies will be forced to develop alternative solutions to energy. The Bush administration did not favor many climate change or climate protection policies. Obama however, is in favor of the cap and dividend policy. In initial talks, he said that he thinks the government should keep 15% of the profits for public programs while the rest of the dividends are returned to the public.

Current Legislation according to Peter Barnes:
Lieberman-Warner
2020 goal: 10 percent below 2005 level
2050 goal: 70 percent below 2005 level
Initial permit allocation: 76 percent given away free, 24 percent auctioned
offsets: yes
safety valve: Administered by a Fed-like board
other feature: Most auction revenue goes to fossil fuel companies for research
Bingaman-Specter
2020 goal: 2006 level
2050 goal: Contingent on other countries’ efforts
Initial permit allocation: 76 percent given away free, 24
percent auctioned
offsets: yes
safety valve: starts at $12 a ton
other feature: Most auction revenue goes to fossil fuel companies for research
Sanders-Boxer
2020 goal: 1990 level
2050 goal: 80 percent below 1990 level
Initial permit allocation: Authorizes, but doesn’t require, EPA to set a declining cap, auction permits, and distribute proceeds to individuals, communities, and companies
offsets: not covered
safety valve: trigger price linked to a technology index
other feature: Higher auto and electricity efficiency standards

www.onthecommons.org

Why the Cap and Dividend system works the best
Cap and Dividend is the best policy because everyone pays more for burning the carbon and it also pays the consumers as carbon increases. This type of carbon cap is called an “upstream cap” where the permits on carbon would be reduced every year, thus limiting the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. which will cause the price of energy to increase. These windfall profits are redistributed back to the public. The dividends will be redistributed to the households based on how much energy each household uses. The poor benefits the most because they pollute the least. (Table on page 72 of the book “Climate Solutions”). So depending on how much energy you use in your household, you can either gain a lot or lose a lot. The poor would benefit the most from this program.
The “not for profit” trust that administers the dividend returns can be run by a government agency and can ensure that the system is working efficiently.

What could go wrong / What policies can damage the system
1. Safety valves – When the government has pressure to issue more permits for carbon in future years. Oil companies may influence the market in this way if the amount of permits runs out and they are left with no alternative but to reduce production or shut down.
2. Competition Abroad - US will be at a competitive disadvantage if other countries have less expensive goods, must issue import carbon tax on goods from other parts of the world his will protect domestic manufacturers
3. Offsets are not a viable alternative. Offsets are certificates that claim to remove carbon from the air. The government does not play a part in approving these certificates so there is no standard certificate process. Buying offsets from other regions will not encourage a decrease in carbon production within a country’s economy.
4. States cannot preempt the standard federal policy. There must be a unified federal policy that all states have to follow.


Conclusion

How this carbon cap policy must work:
1. Permits must be auctioned in the economy
2. Carbon cap is lowered by 60% by 2050
3. Clean energy becomes competitive
4. You get an equal share of the permit funds
5. No offsets / No safety valves
6. Protect businesses with carbon border fees

My personal reaction to this idea is that it definitely is the most “fair” carbon cap policy. However, if the money is redistributed back to the people, then there will be no money left to invest in the new alternative energy/renewable energy field. There is no room left for innovation and capital to invest in new businesses in clean tech. I think the best idea is one that is similar to Obama’s: create a hybrid of the cap and auction and the cap and dividend policy. Let the people get 85% of the money and the remainder 15% returns to the government for investments in sustainable development innovation.

Further research: Article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/1124/146.html