This column highlights the top economic stories of the week.

Reports of the demise of the U.S. dollar may be premature. But when some of the world’s most powerful investors are warning of the currency’s decline, investors take notice. More on this story here.

There are many cynics out there that critique and question the future of sustainable products and businesses. It’s easy to side with them, mostly because it’s difficult to understand what comprises a “sustainable” product which in turn creates a domino chain of skepticism about achievability. The industry is in self-defining mode and most of us lack the degrees in chemistry, biology, natural sciences or any other course of study that might support our inclination to trust what marketers tell us is “safe” and what is not. More on this story here.

Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, has grown quickly in recent decades - at the expense of its estuaries, environmentalist advocates say. More on this story here.

Read more of this story »

“Worldwide, less than 8% of folks are responsible for 50% of emissions”, according to Professor Stephen Pacala of Princeton, co-author of Stabilization Wedges.

This group has a higher annual income than even the average American. But the US has the highest per-capita energy consumption rate of any nation, out-consuming the five most populated nations combined. Quite recent studies have confirmed what many already knew: that more affluent people consume more energy, and generate more green house gas (ghg) emissions. Thus, making significant cuts in ghg (to slow warming trends and mitigate climate change) without big cuts in this group’s ghg emissions is a major challenge.

The impact of greenhouse gases on global warming in the short term, and the possibility of severe climate change in the medium to long term, promise to create significant and lasting hardships for everyone. But these hardships will fall hardest on the world’s poorest, who are the ones least responsible for ghg-induced climate change.

Read more of this story »

We’re coming at you live with more special Red, Green, and Blue coverage from New York’s very own Wall Street Green Trading Summit.

It’s Lunchtime now at the WSGTS, and I just emerged from another dizzying bout of acronyms to find myself totally shocked by how little I know about big market investing. Fortunately, I stumbled on Open Carbon World, an open source project on carbon footprints that is here at the conference.  They have accumulated the following glossary of terms, acronyms and etc. to help novices like me navigate these crazy fast talking presentations.  If I drop one or two over the next few days, please forgive the frazzled brain, and give them a look up!  

>> More Wall Street Green Trading Summit:  The Species Bank?, Carbon Markets, Solar Panels and the Electric Grid

OCW is presenting tomorrow, so I’ll reserve final judgment ’til then, but expect a post on some sweet open source ideas having to do with footprints and offsets.

OCW is presenting tomorrow, so I’ll reserve final judgment ’til then, but expect a post on some sweet open source ideas having to do with footprints and offsets.

OK, so Carbon Trading, huh?

The murky mysteries of the market continue to elude me.  The second session today was all about the carbon offset market: where the money is, where the investment opportunities are and will be, and who is making the rules about what a carbon offset even means.

Read more of this story »

Editor’s Note: This post was written by guest contributor Nick Hodge, Matter Network Contributor. Nick also writer for GreenChipStocks and is the co-author of the bestselling book, Investing in Renewable Energy: Making Money on Green Chip Stocks.

We’re all now well aware of the imminence of cap-and-trade legislation becoming reality.

It’s been floated in Congress. It was a major topic on the campaign trail. It has enough support to get through a democratic-led Congress. And the President has verbally committed to such a scheme to numerous world leaders.

A recent New York Times article called it “inevitable.”

Read more of this story »

The United Nations plans to introduce a new market-based emissions trading scheme which would allow developed nations to buy credits from countries having vast stretches of rain forests. The UN hopes that the new scheme would help reduce deforestation and restore the depleting resource of rain forests.

Called the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, REDD, the emission permits would be traded in a way similar to the Certified Emission Reduction permits. The REDD permits would help raise funds for restoring the fast depleting rain forests in the African, South American and South East Asian countries and in return the developed nations would be able to achieve the set emissions reduction goals. The UN plans to include this scheme in the next climate treaty which would follow the Kyoto Protocol.

Read more of this story »

While reporting a 50 percent increase in the number of projects approved under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the administrators at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledged that the carbon trading system requires an overhaul. This is the first time that the UNFCCC has conceded to the fact that the CDM has loopholes which need to be filled in order to make the next climate treaty a success.

CDM is a tool incorporated in the Kyoto Protocol which helps industrialized nations to meet their emissions-reduction targets through investments low-emission projects in the developing world. It has been an instrument to spread clean energy use across the world and providing monetary assistance to the developing countries to reduce their carbon emissions. But the mechanism has had its fair share of criticism.

Critics say that projects which could have been set up without any monetary help have also been incorporated in the CDM. Many other projects which pose potential environmental threat have been approved to sell carbon credits. While approving projects like wind farms for selling carbon credits it must be ensured that the ecology of the area is not going to face any adverse effects, that no trees are cut to make space for the wind mills and that the local population has no objections with the project. These aspects have been ignored so far.

If a project has been established then it should not be considered in the application process. Thorough checks and extensive studies about the ecological, environmental and socio-economic effects must be made mandatory before the any project is approved for selling carbon credits.

For instance, for a hydroelectric project, it must be check if the displaced people have been successfully relocated to new areas, what biodiversity has been lost due to the submergence of land and what are the plans initiated to replenish it and whether the company/government has any plan about managing the methane emissions generated from the project.

Companies in India and China, which sell the lion share of global carbon credits, try to find ways of convincing their respective environmental ministries which further their recommendations to the approval agencies hired by UNFCCC. Therefore, it is important that more transparency brought in the manner in which these agencies go through the procedure of approving projects.

Taking yet another example, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) sells carbon credits under the CDM scheme for using the eco-friendly regenerative braking system in its trains. Now, the DMRC is one of the very few metro projects in the world which manage to generate profit so why does it require money to finance this braking system. More than half of this long-term metro project has been completed and Japan has provided a major portion of the funds but now DMRC is planning to get CDM approval for the whole project itself. The DMRC wants to get approval for selling carbon credits as commuters have shifted from buses/cars thus reducing carbon emissions.

The developed nations are least bothered as they are concerned only with meeting the set emission reduction goals while the developing countries are happy to receive practically free funding for their projects. But if transparency and responsibility is not brought into the system, this whole carbon offsetting scheme would be reduced to a mere eyewash.

Instead of monetary investments technological help should be extended to the developing and poor countries because it is difficult to keep track of the funds. Every entity involved in the process - the project managers, the company involved, the environment ministry and the approving agency - must be made accountable for its actions. We must stop fooling ourselves by selling and earning credits because in reality we have to go a very long way before the rising carbon emissions could be curtailed.

Image source: lamusa at Flickr under Creative Commons License.

Poop Credits, Land Credits — Maybe

Well over a year ago I attended a solar conference in Long Beach, where I found myself in a carbon credit breakout session.

What began as an intelligent discussion on the benefits of cap-and-trade quickly turned extremely futuristic. . . or so I thought.

Given the current climate policy landscape for cap-and-trade, what was discussed during the second part of that panel may be closer than I thought.

I’m talking about a “cap-and-trade” system to solve other difficult environmental problems.

It’s best understood through an example, so I’ll use my home state of Maryland.

Situated around the Chesapeake Bay are hundreds of chicken farms. It’s a major operation — you can often see Tyson and Perdue tractor trailers loaded with chickens on local highways.

But all that agricultural business creates serious problems for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Millions of tons of chicken poop need to be disposed of, and some of it always ends up in the watershed, stoking pollution and unwanted aquatic vegetation growth.

Farms are already forced to buy permits to regulate the chicken poop so, if you think about it, there’s already a monetary system of checks in place. A market-based system isn’t that much of stretch.

What was discussed at that conference–and where I think we’re headed–is a poop-and-trade system, if you will, in which farms are issued a cap on the amount of chicken poop they can dispose of, and must purchase credits at market price for the right to dispose more.

This would drive farm sustainability and could be applied to many other agricultural practices. Farms could then choose to invest in technology like biogas reactors that turn waste into energy, powering their operations in the process.

If they don’t, proceeds from “poop credit” sales could go to fund such projects — just as carbon cap-and-trade revenue will be directed to cleantech projects.

And it doesn’t stop there.

I’ve also heard rumors of “land credits” in which investors can buy credits, at the rate of one acre each, for land not to be developed. This would apply to land that contain wetlands or endangered species, and the future value of the permits would be related to the biodiversity of the undeveloped land.

I know it sounds crazy. I once thought so, too.

But now it looks as though schemes like this could actually be developed.

While there are still many details to be worked out, it’ll be interesting to see how this story line develops.

Image Credit: Señor Codo via Flickr under Creative Commons License

It seems that after using oil & gas as tool to punish the East European nations for their closeness to United States and showing Europe how dependent it is on its supplies, Russia is further trying to wield power by what seems is an intent to control a major share of the carbon credits market.

Russia has declared that it will not sell surplus carbon emission permits to other countries and will stockpile about $58 billion worth of the Kyoto carbon credits. It plans to use these surplus emission permits under the next climate treaty.

Read more of this story »

The first ever auction of carbon permits in the United States has reportedly exceeded all expectations. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) held the first of several planned auctions for carbon permits last week and the demand was so strong, organizers believe it can be a model for a broader-based national program.

RGGI (pronounced ‘reggie’) is a regional agreement between ten northeastern states to manage and regulate greenhouse gas emissions with a system that requires fossil-burning utilities to buy permits for the carbon they release into the atmosphere.

>>More on cap-and-trade at RG&B

Read more of this story »

Africa has so far gone relatively unnoticed in climate change debates, perhaps because it’s seen as a place involved in too many civil wars and too much poverty to be a player in international agreements. But the poor of Africa, even though they generate lower carbon footprints as a whole, still face the same global effects of climate change as the bigger, richer nations do…and that are generally caused by the bigger, richer nations.

Read more of this story »

Crystalline Tower Office Building in Manhattan

BofA’s new 2.1 million square foot, 54 story tower is being heralded as the world’s greenest skyscraper. This $1 billion glass, steel, and aluminum skyscraper will use significantly less water and energy, while providing a healthy indoor environment.

It features a passive solar design, the use of recycled and renewable materials, and work stations with individual climate controls. Natural elements include the use of rain water and a green roof reduces energy use for heating and cooling. A graywater system will reuse waste water from sinks to flush toilets. A 4.6 megawatt cogeneration plant will generate heat and electricity.

Read more of this story »

While I know that living a green lifestyle is the best for our family and the environment, I have always wondered about the co-relation between TV and green living choices? I am not one for watching TV as a pastime, especially considering the increase in my internet time in the recent years. However even with the expanding world of web entertainment, I have struggled with how to go green in this area. That was until recently…until I discovered Go Green Tube.

Go Green Tube is a brand new tool for the consumer to make educated choices on green products and services. Similar in concept to You Tube it provides a long list of channels that contain videos pertaining to many aspects of environmental issues. Just days after its launch last month, it has accumulated a variety of videos that provide important information about our environment, green technologies, innovations, products, and services so that we as governments, corporations, organizations or individuals can go green using the most effective means possible.

Read more of this story »

By calculating your own carbon footprint you’ll be able to roughly find out how many metric tons of CO2 you generate based on your lifestyle. A carbon footprint calculator factors in things like where you live, what type of building you reside in, what method of transportation you use, how much energy you use and where it is generated. Some will also ask for specific kilowatt-per-hour usage, while others ask if you buy local food and how much waste you produce.

There are a number of carbon footprint calculators out there and some are more detailed than others. Your results will vary depending on the amount of information you are asked to input, and are based on national and international averages.

Once you calculate, see if you can find ways to reduce your carbon footprint. There may be some short car trips that you can walk or bike instead; or simple measures you can take around the house to reduce your overall energy consumption, such as turning off lights in unoccupied rooms or unplugging electronics and appliances when not in use.

For the things you can’t reduce or eliminate, you can purchase carbon credits to offset the rest from companies such as TerraPass or CarbonFund.

Find out what your carbon footprint is with one of these calculators:

Environmental Defense

An Inconvenient Truth

The Nature Conservancy

World Resources Institute

Further information from Green Options:

Green Family Values: What’s Your Child’s School’s Carbon Footprint?

Carbon Offsetters Not Always Taking Easy Way Out

Environmental Defense: Inside a Carbon Calculator

Introduction to Carbon Credits

Options for Calculating Your Carbon Offsets

Daily Tip: Offset Your Summer Travel

Poop Credits, Land Credits — Maybe

Well over a year ago I attended a solar conference in Long Beach, where I found myself in a carbon credit breakout session.

What began as an intelligent discussion on the benefits of cap-and-trade quickly turned extremely futuristic. . . or so I thought.

Given the current climate policy landscape for cap-and-trade, what was discussed during the second part of that panel may be closer than I thought.

I’m talking about a “cap-and-trade” system to solve other difficult environmental problems.

It’s best understood through an example, so I’ll use my home state of Maryland.

Situated around the Chesapeake Bay are hundreds of chicken farms. It’s a major operation — you can often see Tyson and Perdue tractor trailers loaded with chickens on local highways.

But all that agricultural business creates serious problems for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Millions of tons of chicken poop need to be disposed of, and some of it always ends up in the watershed, stoking pollution and unwanted aquatic vegetation growth.

Farms are already forced to buy permits to regulate the chicken poop so, if you think about it, there’s already a monetary system of checks in place. A market-based system isn’t that much of stretch.

What was discussed at that conference–and where I think we’re headed–is a poop-and-trade system, if you will, in which farms are issued a cap on the amount of chicken poop they can dispose of, and must purchase credits at market price for the right to dispose more.

This would drive farm sustainability and could be applied to many other agricultural practices. Farms could then choose to invest in technology like biogas reactors that turn waste into energy, powering their operations in the process.

If they don’t, proceeds from “poop credit” sales could go to fund such projects — just as carbon cap-and-trade revenue will be directed to cleantech projects.

And it doesn’t stop there.

I’ve also heard rumors of “land credits” in which investors can buy credits, at the rate of one acre each, for land not to be developed. This would apply to land that contain wetlands or endangered species, and the future value of the permits would be related to the biodiversity of the undeveloped land.

I know it sounds crazy. I once thought so, too.

But now it looks as though schemes like this could actually be developed.

While there are still many details to be worked out, it’ll be interesting to see how this story line develops.

Image Credit: Señor Codo via Flickr under Creative Commons License

If you're flying or driving to your vacation destination offset those CO2 emissions your trip generates by purchasing carbon credits.

First you'll need to calculate how much you'll need to buy. There are a number of carbon calculators out there, but if you're looking to figure out your emissions for a single trip check out TerraPass or Carbonfund.org. Unlike other carbon calculators that help you find your yearly carbon footprint, these two sites offer simple per trip calculators. After a couple of clicks, you'll find out the approximate CO2 emissions of your trip and can then easily purchase credits. UK based climatmundi is good for international, country hoppers.

Some airlines are already getting into the travel offset realm, like Scandinavian Airline SAS, and travel website Expedia which recently partnered with TerraPass to give customers the option of offsetting their travel at the time of checkout.

Why offset? Global warming of course! In her post, Introduction to Carbon Credits, GO's Maria Surma Manka sums it up pretty well:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) – a major contributor to global warming – is emitted when we drive, when we fly, or when we flip the light switch (if the electricity comes from fossil fuels, which most of it does). We’re moving slowly toward a renewable energy system, but not fast enough for a lot of us. So one way to cut through the bureaucratic mess holding back 60 mpg vehicles and lots of clean electricity is to become carbon neutral yourself…

One can invest in an organization, activity, or event that reduces the carbon dioxide spewing into the atmosphere. Carbon credits range from tree planting (trees absorb or “breathe” carbon dioxide) to donating to an organization that develops solar ovens in Africa that don’t need to burn wood (and release carbon) to cook food.

And remember you can win wind credits to offset your daily CO2 emissions by suggesting a Tip o' the Day.

Amy says: I just took a trip to Seattle from NYC. According to the TerraPass calculator my 4,807 mile flight was equal to 1,874 lbs of CO2. For $9.95 I was able to offset my trip. The $9.95 covers 2,500 lbs of CO2 - so the extra should cover my transport to and from the airports.

More from Maria Surma Manka on Carbon Credits:

Introduction to Carbon Credits

Options for Calculating Your Carbon Offsets

The Green Options Interview: Eric Carlson of Carbonfund.org

The Green Options Interview: Erik Blachford, CEO of TerraPass

More from GO:

Renewable Energy Credits (REC)

Leave No Trace - And No Carbon Footprint - When Backpacking

Eco-Travel

Poop Credits, Land Credits — Maybe

Well over a year ago I attended a solar conference in Long Beach, where I found myself in a carbon credit breakout session.

What began as an intelligent discussion on the benefits of cap-and-trade quickly turned extremely futuristic. . . or so I thought.

Given the current climate policy landscape for cap-and-trade, what was discussed during the second part of that panel may be closer than I thought.

I’m talking about a “cap-and-trade” system to solve other difficult environmental problems.

It’s best understood through an example, so I’ll use my home state of Maryland.

Situated around the Chesapeake Bay are hundreds of chicken farms. It’s a major operation — you can often see Tyson and Perdue tractor trailers loaded with chickens on local highways.

But all that agricultural business creates serious problems for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Millions of tons of chicken poop need to be disposed of, and some of it always ends up in the watershed, stoking pollution and unwanted aquatic vegetation growth.

Farms are already forced to buy permits to regulate the chicken poop so, if you think about it, there’s already a monetary system of checks in place. A market-based system isn’t that much of stretch.

What was discussed at that conference–and where I think we’re headed–is a poop-and-trade system, if you will, in which farms are issued a cap on the amount of chicken poop they can dispose of, and must purchase credits at market price for the right to dispose more.

This would drive farm sustainability and could be applied to many other agricultural practices. Farms could then choose to invest in technology like biogas reactors that turn waste into energy, powering their operations in the process.

If they don’t, proceeds from “poop credit” sales could go to fund such projects — just as carbon cap-and-trade revenue will be directed to cleantech projects.

And it doesn’t stop there.

I’ve also heard rumors of “land credits” in which investors can buy credits, at the rate of one acre each, for land not to be developed. This would apply to land that contain wetlands or endangered species, and the future value of the permits would be related to the biodiversity of the undeveloped land.

I know it sounds crazy. I once thought so, too.

But now it looks as though schemes like this could actually be developed.

While there are still many details to be worked out, it’ll be interesting to see how this story line develops.

Image Credit: Señor Codo via Flickr under Creative Commons License

But occasionally, one of our friends in Washington gives us genuine cause for celebration. Last week, that politician was Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT). At a news conference, Welch announced that he is pledging to make both of his offices (one in D.C. and one in Vermont) carbon neutral:

Congressman Peter Welch can't put solar panels on Capitol Hill, or used french fry grease to power the commercial plane that jets him back to Vermont each week. And he can't make his staff read by candlelight.

But the Vermont Democrat says he can make his offices "carbon neutral" — by promoting renewable energy projects in Vermont that negate his staff's impact on the environment.

To accomplish this, Welch will offset the estimated 56 tons of carbon dioxide produced by his offices and his travel by investing in an anaerobic methane digester on a dairy farm and a wood pellet-fired boiler that will replace a fossil fuel-fired boiler at a Vermont college. The total cost of his investments to offset that 56 tons of carbon dioxide? $672. And there's more good news, taxpayers: Welch is making the investment with his own money, and is proposing legislation that encourages his fellow lawmakers to do the same.

As Maria noted last week on Green Options, "carbon credits", also called "carbon offsets," have received quite a bit of attention lately, but they're also often misunderstood. (We hope you'll find our Renewable Energy Credits entry in the Green Living Guide and Maria's "Carbon Credits" series, with the second installment coming tomorrow, useful in this regard). In short, carbon credits are investments in clean, renewable energy that "offset" the consumption of "dirty", carbon dioxide emitting energy. Rep. Welch's offices will not directly use the renewable energy his investment helped produce. But! Somebody else will be using that clean energy instead of coal, oil, or natural gas, thereby "offsetting" or "neutralizing" the carbon emissions his offices caused.

Not only do Rep. Welch's actions raise awareness of little-known and underappreciated options like carbon credits and ideas like carbon neutrality, but they also (here's a thought) set a great example for us average citizen types. Our elected representatives have large roles to play in developing global solutions to climate change, but we, as ordinary folks, play equally important roles with our individual actions. Rep. Welch recognizes this, and he put his money where his mouth is. That's leadership.

For all I know, Rep. Welch's car gets 8 miles per gallon, his thermostat in the winter is set to 78 and in the summer to 63, and he flies in salmon from Alaska nightly for dinner. Even so, today we can proudly and sincerely say: kudos Congressman Welch.

Poop Credits, Land Credits — Maybe

Well over a year ago I attended a solar conference in Long Beach, where I found myself in a carbon credit breakout session.

What began as an intelligent discussion on the benefits of cap-and-trade quickly turned extremely futuristic. . . or so I thought.

Given the current climate policy landscape for cap-and-trade, what was discussed during the second part of that panel may be closer than I thought.

I’m talking about a “cap-and-trade” system to solve other difficult environmental problems.

It’s best understood through an example, so I’ll use my home state of Maryland.

Situated around the Chesapeake Bay are hundreds of chicken farms. It’s a major operation — you can often see Tyson and Perdue tractor trailers loaded with chickens on local highways.

But all that agricultural business creates serious problems for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Millions of tons of chicken poop need to be disposed of, and some of it always ends up in the watershed, stoking pollution and unwanted aquatic vegetation growth.

Farms are already forced to buy permits to regulate the chicken poop so, if you think about it, there’s already a monetary system of checks in place. A market-based system isn’t that much of stretch.

What was discussed at that conference–and where I think we’re headed–is a poop-and-trade system, if you will, in which farms are issued a cap on the amount of chicken poop they can dispose of, and must purchase credits at market price for the right to dispose more.

This would drive farm sustainability and could be applied to many other agricultural practices. Farms could then choose to invest in technology like biogas reactors that turn waste into energy, powering their operations in the process.

If they don’t, proceeds from “poop credit” sales could go to fund such projects — just as carbon cap-and-trade revenue will be directed to cleantech projects.

And it doesn’t stop there.

I’ve also heard rumors of “land credits” in which investors can buy credits, at the rate of one acre each, for land not to be developed. This would apply to land that contain wetlands or endangered species, and the future value of the permits would be related to the biodiversity of the undeveloped land.

I know it sounds crazy. I once thought so, too.

But now it looks as though schemes like this could actually be developed.

While there are still many details to be worked out, it’ll be interesting to see how this story line develops.

Image Credit: Señor Codo via Flickr under Creative Commons License