The CLEAR Act

In December, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the CLEAR Act, another promising bill to reduce climate change.  CLEAR stands for Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal. Its approach is called cap-and-dividend.  Under this bill:

• the Department of Energy would auction carbon shares (1 share = a permit to emit a ton of CO2), to U.S. companies that import and produce fossil fuels
• 75% of the auction proceeds would be divided evenly among U.S. consumers each month
• 25% would go to a fund (the Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund) to pay for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low‐carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and regional economic adjustments
• The number of permits sold each year would decrease to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83% reduction by 2050 
• The permit price would be determined by bidding on permits but regulated to be within a certain range to reduce the economic damage caused by too much price volatility 
• Only producers and importers would be required to purchase permits and allowed to bid

The apparent advantages of this bill, pointed out by Mike Sandler at the Huffington Post, are that 100% of permits are auctioned, no offsets are allowed (offsets let an emitter buy shares in a project that reduces CO2 rather than reducing the emitter's CO2 production), and no one but producers and importers can bid on permits (no speculators, investment firms, etc.). In other bills, such as ACES (Waxman-Markey, which passed the House last year), many permits were given away for free, offsets were allowed, and third parties could buy and sell permits.

What do you think of this bill?  Post your comments, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Do We Need Nuclear Power to Reduce Climate Change?

In researching this question, I ran across an interesting website, ProCon.org.  Their goal is to "provide resources for critical thinking and to educate without bias. We do not express opinions on our research projects."  On this issue, at least, I think they've succeeded. Here's their piece, "Is expanding nuclear energy production necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" Let me know what you think, and next week, I'll let you know what I think!
Stay cool,
Bonney

Here's the comments I submitted to the Environmental Improvement Board regarding proposed regulation of greenhouse gases.  You can submit comments through the end of the hearing on Monday, or attend the hearing and present your comments in person.  See last week's blog post for details.

Re: Docket number EIB  08-19 (R)

I have read the proposed regulations and support the proposal to set a science based cap on greenhouse gas emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. As a former Environment Department employee, I find the proposed regulations to be fair and enforceable. Setting these regulations will provide a more predictable environment for business than the current lack of regulation in which we are left to wonder what form regulation will take. As a scientist and writer studying climate change for the last year and a half, I've concluded, along with a large majority of scientists studying the issue, that climate change is one of the most severe environmental problems facing the species of planet Earth, including humans.

New Mexico has the chance to join California and Massachusetts in passing regulations that create a favorable environment for investment in renewable energy, spurring a green economic recovery, and to to have a large influence on what form Federal regulations will take. I encourage the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations. As reported by Ceres, a national network of investors and public interest groups, the world's largest investors released a statement in January 2010 calling on governments to adopt climate change policy that will create a stable investment environment. "Given that Copenhagen was a missed opportunity to create one fully functional international carbon market, it is more important than ever that individual governments implement regional and domestic policy change to stimulate the creation of a low carbon economy,” said Peter Dunsombe, chairman of the IIGCC, a network of European investors.

I call on the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations.

Speak Out for a Greenhouse Gas Cap in New Mexico

New Energy Economy, a Santa Fe-based nonprofit that sees New Mexico's unique opportunity to shape climate change policy in the US, has partnered with the NM Law Center, an nonprofit with a long history of legal action protecting New Mexico's environment and people, to petition the Environmental Improvement Board to reduce greenhouse gases in the state. We are ranked 2nd in the nation for solar potential and 12th for wind.  Investors are calling on governments to regulate greenhouse gases and energy efficiency to create a stable environment for low-carbon energy investments.  The EIB will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 1, 2010 beginning at 10 a.m. at the State Personnel Office Auditorium, Willie Ortiz Building, 2600 Cerrillos Rd. in Santa Fe on these proposed regulations (Note this is a CHANGE of location).  There are three ways you can make your voice heard:  Go to the public hearing and speak in favor of these regulations, which will apply to any source emitting more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year;  submit a written comment by the end of the hearing (see the fifth paragraph of this notice); or sign the New Energy Economy's petition in favor of the new regs.  There are currently no national caps on greenhouse gases, although federal regulations require sources emitting over 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases to report their emissions.  See this post on federal legislation.  We need to take every reasonable action on every possible front to reduce greenhouse gases in light of the seriousness of climate change.  Thanks for all your actions!  Share them here, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Sustainable Cooking and Junk Mail Follow-up

If you haven't been to the actual Carbonless Copy blog, but have just been reading posts in your inbox, go there (www.carbonlesscopy.blogspot.com) to see a comment on last week's post on stopping junk mail.  A reader posted a link to the Direct Mail Association's free Mail Preference Service.  Following the directions there has cut down on her junk mail significantly.  Try it and let us know how it works for you! 

Brighter Planet, a group from Middlebury, Vermont that helps people mitigate their environmental footprint, recently published a guide to Mastering the Art of Sustainable Cooking.  Inspired by Julie Powell's book and the movie Julie and Julia, the guide shares information and recipes from hundreds of contributors to help us lighten our "foodprint." According to the guide, "The average American is responsible for about 28.5 tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year, of which 20 percent, or 6.1 tons, is related to food. That’s greater than the impact of all their driving and flying habits combined. This might be surprising, given that public discussions of carbon emissions focus heavily on transportation while discussions about the impacts of food are typically centered around non-climate issues. But what it means is that individually and collectively, there is huge opportunity to reduce our climate impact by changing how we eat."  Take a look, share by posting a comment, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Should You Buy Carbon Offsets?

After encouraging you to offset your Thanksgiving travel by using one of the offset programs at the bottom of the homepage, I did more research. Carbon offsets, which are shares of projects you can buy that cancel out your greenhouse gas emissions for various activities, are controversial. Responsible Travel, one of the first travel companies to give travelers the option of buying offsets, canceled their program in October because they believe that offsets do more to soothe consciences than reduce CO2 output. We do need to ask ourselves whether we're buying offsets to assuage a guilty conscience, or whether we're using them when we've reduced our carbon footprint as much as we can. If you just have to take a flight, buying an offset will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions if the offset is real. Here's where things get dicey. Michael Wara, a professor at Stanford Law School and former climate scientist, says "we don't know" how many offset projects really reduce CO2 emissions. The hardest part is knowing whether a project would have been done without offsets helping to pay for it. My take is that it's very unlikely that all offset programs would have been done without offset money, so you are paying for some greenhouse gas reduction. Since it's an imperfect mechanism, it's not a great conscience-soother, so don't use it for that. With these cautions in mind, I've changed the links at the bottom of this page to only include carbon offset programs that serve individuals and are retailers for the Climate Action Reserve, which has strict requirements that projects are real, permanent, and additional, and includes independent verification. I encourage you to reduce your carbon footprint as much as you can (see the list of "10 Things" below), look at these sites, and then offset your holiday travel and other activities as much as you see fit. Going through the process will also make each of us more aware of how much greenhouse gas our different activities produce. Please share any thoughts, facts, or questions you have about offsets, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Is "Cash for Clunkers" Good for the Environment?

There's been a lot of publicity about the cash for clunkers program - the government program that pays you to trade in an older vehicle getting less than 18 mpg for a new one that gets at least 22 mpg. But does the program really reduce global warming? The answer is: a very small amount. The problem isn't that the concept is bad, it just doesn't go far enough. But it still makes sense for most individuals to get rid of an old gas-guzzling clunker for a vehicle that getssignificantly more miles to the gallon.

Making a new car produces greenhouse gases, of course. If you trade in a clunker getting 18 mpg for a new car getting 22 mpg, it would take about 5 1/2 years of average driving to save the amount of greenhouse gases that went into manufacturing the new car, according to the dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, William Chameides, quoted on NPR here. After that, you would be reducing your carbon footprint. With trucks, it might take eight or nine years, Chameides says (trucks usually have more material in them and more greenhouse gases are produced in their manufacture). With the median age of cars on the road in the US older than ever at 9.4 years, and some of the new cars purchased getting more than 22 mpg, the net result is positive. However, the Associated Press calculated that the greenhouse gas savings from this year's cash to clunkers program would reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by only a few hundredths of a percent, assuming 500,000 to 750,000 of the 260 million vehicles on the road in the US are traded in.

If you traded in a 20-mpg car for a 50 mpg hybrid, however, you'd make up for the greenhouse gases produced in manufacture in 20 months, according to Gil Friend of ClimateBiz. The greater the difference between the fuel economy of the old car and the fuel economy of the new car, the greater the savings in greenhouse gases. The longer you keep your new car the better for the environment, until there are newer cars whose efficiency is so great that it makes sense to trade in again. The savings with cash to clunkers is not as great as it could be - the original legislation required new cars purchased to meet stricter mileage standards to qualify - but it's a small step in the right direction. And it definitely makes sense for individuals to junk gas guzzlers and buy the most efficient vehicle they can, with or without a government program.
What's in your garage?
Stay cool,
Bonney

Air Conditioning or Windows Down?

A debate rages about (who would guess?) which uses less gas: rolling down your car windows or turning on your air conditioning. However, all 3 tests I could track to their sources showed that running the air conditioner almost always uses more gas than rolling the windows down. For example, Car and Driver did a test on a sedan (they don't say what model, but the photos are of a small sedan) in which running the a/c reduced fuel efficiency by 15% at 35 mph, whereas opening the windows decreased it by only 1.5%. At 75 mph, running the a/c decreased miles per gallon by 6.8% vs. 2% for windows, and results at 55 mph were in between (losses for a/c decrease at higher speeds because the engine is producing more power.)

Consumer Reports findings for a Camry were less dramatic: using a/c at 65 mph decreased the car's fuel efficiency by 1%, whereas rolling windows down at that speed had no measurable effect on fuel economy. A third study by the Society of Automotive Engineers shows that while the results are closer for a sedan, both the sedan and the SUV used more gas with the a/c on than with windows down at speeds of 30, 50, and 68 mph when the temperature was 86F. Bottom line: minimize your use of air conditioning, especially when you're tooling around town. Keep in mind, too, when you ride the bus or train, you can enjoy A/C guilt-free, and bicycling creates its own cooling!

Comment with your thoughts, and stay cool!
Bonney

Unplug Those Vampires!

Since I posted last week, I've read that McKinsey & Co, of which the McKinsey Global Research Institute is the economics research arm, has been involved in some controversial activities. McKinsey & Co is one of the leading management consulting firms worldwide. Enron was one of their biggest clients before its collapse. McKinsey recently recommended that the Minneapolis Public Schools cut teacher health care due to high costs. McKinsey is also credited with starting car insurance practices that result in more claims being denied so that shareholders get higher returns. However, the data in last week's post that was compiled by the McKinsey Global Research Institute is referred to extensively by Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King, two respected climate scientists, in The Hot Topic, a well-researched book on global warming and its solutions, as well as by the global warming blog Climate Progress by expert climate scientist Joseph Romm. According to that data, which is of course based on certain assumptions and predictions, the actions that would result in significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, ranked in order of how much money they would save us, are:

• Improvements in insulation
• Improved fuel efficiency in commercial vehicles
• More efficient lighting systems
• More efficient air conditioning
• More efficient water heating
• Improved fuel efficiency in non-commercial vehicles
• Use of sugarcane biofuel
• Reducing standby losses (loss of energy from keeping a device on standby service without actually using it--such as a hot water tank, TV, VCR, charging device for electronics, etc.)

There are many other actions that would reduce global warming, but these are the major ones that would also save us money even in the short term, according to this report. Notice that many of the actions on the list--which apply to industries and homes--correspond to actions on our "10 things we can do to reduce global warming" list at the very bottom of this page. However, the last one, reducing standby losses, is not on the list, but should be. If everyone unplugged all their chargers and appliances when they're not being used, we could reduce global greenhouse emissions by 1%. That's because chargers and appliances in standby, like TVs, VCR's, and many others, known as "vampires," draw power even when they're not being used. That's a lot of global warming for energy that's being wasted.

What's in your carbon-footprint-reducing toolbox?
Stay cool,
Bonney

Reducing CO2 won't cost as much as many think

I found a great report through Climate Progress, the blog I talked about last week. The Carbon Productivity Challenge: Curbing climate change and sustaining economic growth, by the McKinsey Global Institute, gives us several bits of good news. First, a significant amount of CO2 equivalents can be cut by employing good old-fashioned ideas like insulation and improving the efficiency of lighting, heating, cooling, and vehicles, which would actually save money. These are some of the first measures we should put in place. Second, the cost to implement all steps needed to keep CO2 equivalents to a level that would avoid drastic consequences by 2030 would be only 0.6-1.4 percent of projected gross domestic product (GDP). This is similar to the cost estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and this form of insurance would cost less than what the world currently spends on insurance (not counting life insurance), which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005.

McKinsey's research also debunks some myths about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to the common notion that new technology must save us, 70% of reductions needed by 2030 don't depend on new technology. Read the summary here. At the bottom, there's a link to the full report.

Send me your ideas on what we can all do to reduce global warming, and stay cool!