With heavy subsidies in place for nuclear power, France already generates 80% of its electricity from non-fossil-fueled sources. The French are also participants in the European cap-and-trade regime. That combination of support for clean technologies and downward pressure on carbon is the same that the Obama White House sees as the critical path to green energy adoption in the US. Progress has been elusive in that regard and things do not look rosy in the Senate this fall.

Read more of this story »

One universal difficulty is the continuing cost gap between renewable and fossil fuels. Creating an incentive program that works within the prevailing market - even a heavily regulated one - without interfering with normal market operation is very difficult when the price points are so far apart. Internalizing some of the costs of burning fossil fuels would help close that gap, and that is what cap-and-trade is all about: promote and subsidize clean energy and put downward pressure (both economically and through command and control) on dirtier fuels.

Read more of this story »

Just when you thought no more ink could be spilled about the merits or political viability of a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade, it has. With the House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as Waxman-Markey, a version of the bill is now being considered by the Senate. And while there are certainly things to both love and hate about Waxman-Markey, it may be the only hope we currently have for meaningful climate change legislation. But are there other options?

Now, I’m not saying in all cases a carbon tax is superior to a cap-and-trade, in fact, I may just write a “7 Reasons a Cap-and-Trade is Better than a Carbon Tax” post after this one. But in some instances, the straight tax does have its advantages.

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 »

A report released by the group Center for Naval Analyses quoted former top-ranking generals and admirals saying that dependence on foreign oil and failure to make the national grid compatible with renewable energy sources is a serious threat to the security of the United States.

Oil continues to be the primary source of energy generation in the United States. But more significant is the source of the oil that America consumes. The problem with the energy production in the United States is that it is not only heavily dependent on fossil fuels but also on imported fossil fuels. As the report noted, America’s armed forces are big consumers of oil and they have been highly active for the last decade of so, further increasing the oil consumption and import from other countries. The situation puts America in an uneasy situation since it has become heavy dependent on foreign fuel.

Since that time [1980s], the total volume of oil imported to the United States has nearly tripled. That dependence weakens U.S. international leverage, undermines foreign policy and threatens economic stability, the report finds, noting that well more than half of top oil companies are wholly or majority-owned by foreign states and are located in countries like Venezuela, Russia and Iran.

Energy resources have become an instrument to wield power and influence in the world, a fact explicitly demonstrated by Russia when it cut gas supplies to Georgia and Europe. Last year experts had warned of an spectacular rise in oil prices in case Iran attempts to blockade the sea routes in the Middle East, a small but real possibility of which continues to persist even today.

Read more of this story »

During the Sustainable Industries Economic Forum this morning in San Francisco, keynote speaker Ray Anderson, Founder and Chair of Interface, a true green business pioneering company, was asked what his best three pieces of advice for Barack Obama would be.

First was to shift the economy, and federal subsidies, from old technology to new and high tech industries.  It’s estimated that 50% of coal power plants would be unprofitable without subsidies.  “It’s time to shift the equation”, he said.

Second was to get a price on carbon.  “By hook or by crook,” Anderson said.  “It needs to happen, and I think a carbon tax is probably impossible politically, but cap and trade is possible.”  Anderson went on to say that “Carbon has been getting a free ride, and it’s time to change that.”

And third, Anderson cited the controversy over nuclear power.  Saying that our legacy of poison for future generations will be tough to justify, given that nuclear waste will outlast the lifespan of any language on the planet, so how can we possibly put good warning signs on our waste?

Scott Cooney is the author of Build a Green Small Business:  Profitable Ways to Become an Ecopreneur (McGraw-Hill).

Twitter Scott

Rich State / Poor State - Calculating Climate Debt

Regarding these quite possible environmental impacts on the world’s poorest, the preceding information is also relevant in the context of rich verses poor nations.

In the same article for Ecologicaldebt.org, Ms. Wysham cites one recent, highly publicized study, the 2006 Stern Review (estimates revised upward in 2008), in which it was estimated that “stabilization of global warming gases at roughly 500-550 parts per million of carbon dioxide would cost about 2% of gross domestic product annually, if done over the next two decades. And 2% of GDP is roughly equivalent to $1.2 trillion per year.”  This reduction, according to many scientists, isn’t nearly ambitious enough. Some, like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, recommend a target of 350 parts per million. But in either case, the economic cost would be more easily born by richer nations.

It is evident that if the rest of the developing world were to “catch up” to our standard of living, this global state  would be entirely unsustainable. Thus, two things must happen pretty much in tandem: richer nations must decrease their rates of consumption, and poorer nations must only modestly increase their own rates, but within the context of adapting to climate change, which includes shifting to renewable, non ghg emitting energy sources. The question then becomes: who should pay for this transition, in the developing world,  to renewable, non-CO2 emitting energy sources?

The greenhouse gases that endanger many developing nations’ futures are coming from the United States, China and Europe. People in poor nations like Bangladesh and Namibia emit almost no carbon, yet they are the ones who will bear the greatest risks of climate change–through devastating floods and droughts, according to many climate change predictions. Clearly, a poorer nation’s ability to assist its people after such catastrophes, and its ability to remedy and restore damaged resources and ecosystems, is quite limited. Some experts have asserted that the damage the West does to poor countries from carbon emissions exceeds the benefit from aid programs.

As noted, the cost of climate change mitigation and adaptation will fall the hardest on these poorer nations. This is the basis of the globally emerging Climate Fairness movement. National governments, as well as non-governmental and civilian organizations around the world are now asserting that the first world owes a debt to the third world for enabling it to become so rich in the first place–but now at the additional price of tipping the world’s climate towards possible catastrophe.

Read more of this story »

The Copenhagen round of talks aimed at building a consensus about the features of the next climate treaty is scheduled to take place this December however, there seem to be no signs of consensus over how the world should proceed to reduce its carbon emissions. Which tool would be most effective? Clean Development Mechanism, a global carbon tax or maybe a global carbon labelling law?

Clean Development Mechanism has been tried, tested and, well, has been branded somewhat ineffective by not only the people outside the system but the people who are actually a part of it, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Bureaucratic delays, procedural wrongdoings in approval of projects and failure to make any difference at the grass-root level are some of the well known problems with this scheme.

The European Union has proposed that the CDM be replaced by a global carbon tax. United States saw a national carbon tax bill introduced in the Congress. The bill calls for levying an ‘carbon equivalency fee’ on imported products, in addition to the nationwide carbon tax in order to neutralize the losses incurred by domestic manufacturers. China has opposed this move saying that the developed countries are in part responsible for the emissions as they are the end users. 

Read more of this story »

After committing to the formation of a climate change fund for the poor countries at the 2007 Bali conference, the European Union is finding itself in a fix over how to raise the billions needed to assist the poor countries acquire the new cleaner technology from the developed nations.

In a meeting held at Brussels, the EU nations failed to build consensus over the amount of funds they were willing to commit for the promised climate change fund. Questions like which nations contributes how much, how would this affect the already recession-hit economies and will the United States and advanced developing countries respond in kind, remained unanswered meaning that there was no agreement reached.

The issues which form the core of this problem are: No indication from advanced developing countries to commit to mandatory emissions reduction and thus unwillingness from the developed nations (and their citizens) to unilaterally commit to stricter emission reductions; secondly, during this phase of economic recession there is huge shortage of credit around the world and governments are reluctant to invest in other countries or international projects and lastly, differences over the principle of ‘polluter pays’.

Read more of this story »

With fears of being pressurized to agree to mandatory emissions cuts under the new climate treaty, China has up the ante and is looking to hit back at the developed countries by holding them accountable for a size-able portion of its carbon emissions. According to a recent study, 15 to 25 percent of China’s carbon emissions originate from manufacturing of goods exported to developed countries.

The Director of China’s Climate Change department, Gao Li,  has said that since the western countries are these final users of the carbon intensive products they should share the responsibility for the same with the Chinese government. Mr. Li also said that sharing equal responsibility was essential to reach any fair agreement over reducing the carbon emissions.

These statements came almost a week after a carbon tax bill was introduced in the US Congress which called for levying an ‘carbon equivalency fee’ on imported products, in addition to the nationwide carbon tax in order to neutralize the losses incurred by domestic manufacturers. The bill, if passed, would also allow the US government to withhold revenue generated from the equivalence fee till the time the producer nation agrees to a domestic carbon tax of its own. 

Read more of this story »

A week ago, Rep. John B. Larson introduced the America’s Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009 in the US Congress. The bill which has evolved from its previous version has advocated a nationwide carbon tax in addition to an ‘equivalent’ tax on the imported carbon intensive goods. The bill also proposes to neutralize the impact on the working class by giving out carbon tax rebate.

Calls for a carbon tax have been increasing ever since President Obama took office. In order to achieve energy independence and reducing carbon emissions due to the country’s ‘historical responsivbility’, President Obama proposed the implementation of cap and trade scheme. The administration feels that such a scheme would not only check the nation’s carbon emissions but would also generate much needed income.

The European Union also proposed that the Clean Developments Mechanism be replaced by a global carbon tax. Citing the drawbacks of CDM, like lack of transparency and beaurcratic delays, the EU proposed that a carbon tax seems to be the simplest and most effective method to meet emission targets and help getting developing countries access to the clean technologies.

Read more of this story »

With eyes on the Copenhagen talks for discussion on the next climate policy, the European Union plans to propose a tax on the carbon emissions of the developed nations, a move which could generate more than $200 billion by 2020. These funds will be used in helping developing and poor nations move from fossils fuels based energy systems to those based on renewable sources.

The European Union proposes that carbon offsetting through the trade of carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism be phased out and replaced by a scheme under which the developed nations would commit to cut their carbon emissions but would also pay taxes for extra emissions. The proposal also calls for a similar scheme for the ‘advanced developing nations’ like India and China but fails to clarify its nature.

Carbon offsetting cannot be pursued as a long term solution to mitigate the global carbon emissions and thus the Clean Development Mechanism should be seen only as a transformational step and not the solution to the problem. Replacing carbon offsetting with binding emission reductions seems to be the obvious next step but one has to ask if the world can afford a climate tax at this time of economic meltdown.

Read more of this story »

Obama Wants to Double Renewable Energy in Three years: In Barack Obama’s weekly TV address he outlined a plan to create three to four million new jobs. Half a million of those jobs would be in the area of clean energy and energy efficiency. The president-elect also said he would commit to doubling the country’s renewable energy production in three years.

Waxman Thinks House will Pass Carbon Legislation This year: The new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. Representative Henry Waxman said he is “determined” to pass a climate bill this year in the House.

Timber Company Drops Road Deal with Forest Service: Plum Creek Timber Company announced it will no longer pursue changes in rules governing its use of U.S. Forest Service roads. Despite the innocent-sounding name, Plum Creek Timber is actually the largest owner of forestland in the U.S. Critics complained the rule change could transform forests into housing subdivisions.

Bush Creates More Marine Protected Areas in Pacific: George W. Bush is clearly working to make his environmental legacy through the preservation of marine areas. This week, Bush moved to protect another swath of area in the Pacific by designating them National Monuments. The new monuments will protect the Mariana Trench, the deepest canyon on Earth; coral reefs off the cost of the Mariana Islands; and an atoll known as the “Islands of Seabirds.”

Rich State / Poor State - Calculating Climate Debt

Regarding these quite possible environmental impacts on the world’s poorest, the preceding information is also relevant in the context of rich verses poor nations.

In the same article for Ecologicaldebt.org, Ms. Wysham cites one recent, highly publicized study, the 2006 Stern Review (estimates revised upward in 2008), in which it was estimated that “stabilization of global warming gases at roughly 500-550 parts per million of carbon dioxide would cost about 2% of gross domestic product annually, if done over the next two decades. And 2% of GDP is roughly equivalent to $1.2 trillion per year.”  This reduction, according to many scientists, isn’t nearly ambitious enough. Some, like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, recommend a target of 350 parts per million. But in either case, the economic cost would be more easily born by richer nations.

It is evident that if the rest of the developing world were to “catch up” to our standard of living, this global state  would be entirely unsustainable. Thus, two things must happen pretty much in tandem: richer nations must decrease their rates of consumption, and poorer nations must only modestly increase their own rates, but within the context of adapting to climate change, which includes shifting to renewable, non ghg emitting energy sources. The question then becomes: who should pay for this transition, in the developing world,  to renewable, non-CO2 emitting energy sources?

The greenhouse gases that endanger many developing nations’ futures are coming from the United States, China and Europe. People in poor nations like Bangladesh and Namibia emit almost no carbon, yet they are the ones who will bear the greatest risks of climate change–through devastating floods and droughts, according to many climate change predictions. Clearly, a poorer nation’s ability to assist its people after such catastrophes, and its ability to remedy and restore damaged resources and ecosystems, is quite limited. Some experts have asserted that the damage the West does to poor countries from carbon emissions exceeds the benefit from aid programs.

As noted, the cost of climate change mitigation and adaptation will fall the hardest on these poorer nations. This is the basis of the globally emerging Climate Fairness movement. National governments, as well as non-governmental and civilian organizations around the world are now asserting that the first world owes a debt to the third world for enabling it to become so rich in the first place–but now at the additional price of tipping the world’s climate towards possible catastrophe.

Read more of this story »

The Hansens open the letter with appealing to the Obama’s as parents and concerned citizens:

“We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born … Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal.”

Read more of this story »

Certain to take notice was British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, who heads into an election of his own in the spring having to defend an unpopular carbon tax.

Read more of this story »

Whenever you transition to a new technology or a new way of thinking about structuring our economy, the old is going to resist the new. The key is to make the new profitable, job-generating and appealing enough that more and more people embrace the new and let go of the old. That’s where government can play a role. If we institute a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, that’s going to generate billions of dollars. Now, that’s also going to mean higher electricity prices for consumers, so a huge chunk of that has to go back to consumers in the form of rebates, so they don’t feel the pinch as badly. [author's highlight]

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/22/forget-cap-and-trade-cap-and-dividend-is-the-way-forward/feed/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/07/01/british-columbia-begins-taxing-carbon/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/07/01/british-columbia-begins-taxing-carbon/#comments Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:10:30 +0000 Timothy B. Hurst http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/07/01/british-columbia-begins-taxing-carbon/ Today is July 1, and that means North America’s first ever carbon tax will take effect in the Canadian province of British Columbia.

The carbon tax, introduced in the Feb. 19 budget, taxes carbon-based fuels like gasoline, diesel, natural gas and home heating fuel. The rate of taxation is $10 (Can.) per ton of greenhouse gases generated. The carbon tax will rise $5 a ton for the next four years until it hits $30 per ton in 2012. The tax increase works out to an extra 2.4 cents a liter on gasoline, increasing to 7.24 cents per liter by 2012.

The government has said all carbon tax revenue (roughly $1.8 billion over three years) will be returned to British Columbians through reductions to income and business taxes. But with rising gasoline prices, the addition of the new carbon tax will certainly be making some British Columbian drivers cringe when they fill up at the pump.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/07/01/british-columbia-begins-taxing-carbon/feed/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/19/british-fuel-prices-situation-red/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/19/british-fuel-prices-situation-red/#comments Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:00:03 +0000 Mark Seall http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/19/british-fuel-prices-situation-red/ What stared as a murmur of discontent is turning into an increasingly vocal chorus of protest as the British public begin to feel the pain of rising inflation, with already high fuel prices predicted to rise by as much as another 40% by the end of the year.

With a tank of fuel for the average family car costing close to $150, high fuel prices have effectively acted as one very large carbon tax - and effective they have been. Britons have reduced fuel consumption by 20% during the past year, driving less, and driving more slowly at the same time. Sales of fuel efficient vehicles are at an all time high.

But unfortunately this is not politically sustainable. The aforementioned protest is hurting the government’s popularity badly as disposable incomes are eroded by fuel bills. Having previously made broad promises to reduce Britain’s CO2 output by up to 80% by 2050 in a bid to profess world leadership on Climate Change, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been carefully avoiding any kind of statement on environmental targets during previous months. Meanwhile Britain is set to miss most of it’s legally binding and far less ambitious climate change objectives anyway.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/19/british-fuel-prices-situation-red/feed/ http://ecoworldly.com/2008/04/13/top-10-environmental-news-headlines-of-the-week-no-3/ http://ecoworldly.com/2008/04/13/top-10-environmental-news-headlines-of-the-week-no-3/#comments Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:06:59 +0000 Gavin Hudson http://ecoworldly.com/2008/04/13/top-10-environmental-news-headlines-of-the-week-no-3/ Top international environmental news for during the week of April 6 - 13:

Europe — World’s first commercial tidal turbine installed (EcoGeek)

“The world’s first commercial tidal turbine has been installed in its home in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough.

Though it has yet to be turned on, it will be the first commercial power-producing tidal generator when it is (sometime later this year). The turbine has two 16 meter-wide rotors and will be able to run for 18-20 hours a day. The turbine was installed off the coast in an area known for fast moving waters, and because the rotors will only spin 10-20 times in a minute, it is unlikely to disturb marine life.”

Source: EcoGeek. Hot in media: Digg EcoGeek, Digg TimesOnline.

Africa — Tree-Nation (Tree-Nation)

“Tree-Nation is an ecological project with a focused objective: To plant 8 million trees in Niger, Africa to fight desertification! Large-scale plantation of trees will increase the land’s productivity and re-generate the soil.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://ecoworldly.com/2008/04/13/top-10-environmental-news-headlines-of-the-week-no-3/feed/ http://gas2.org/2008/04/05/canada-unleashes-first-carbon-tax-in-n-america/ http://gas2.org/2008/04/05/canada-unleashes-first-carbon-tax-in-n-america/#comments Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:39:43 +0000 Clayton B. Cornell http://gas2.org/2008/04/05/canada-unleashes-first-carbon-tax-in-n-america/

British Columbia will be the first in North America to institute a comprehensive carbon tax on nearly all fossil fuels. It’s a groundbreaking move that could prove the feasibility of taxing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Beginning July 1st, 2008, businesses and residents of British Columbia will be taxed $10 per metric ton of carbon emitted by fuels such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane, and home heating fuel. The tax will increase yearly by $5 per ton to $30 per ton in 2012, at which point the government will reevaluate the tax rate.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://gas2.org/2008/04/05/canada-unleashes-first-carbon-tax-in-n-america/feed/ http://cleantechnica.com/2008/04/04/4-factors-slowing-solar-energy-growth-in-us/ http://cleantechnica.com/2008/04/04/4-factors-slowing-solar-energy-growth-in-us/#comments Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:19:38 +0000 Sarah Lozanova http://cleantechnica.com/2008/04/04/4-factors-slowing-solar-energy-growth-in-us/

Despite all the talk about solar energy, it only generates a measly .1% of electricity in the US. Meanwhile, national demand for electricity is growing by 2% annually. Considering that solar technology has been in use for decades, why is it not more widespread?

Cheap Fossil Fuels

Even though sunlight is free, fossil fuels in the US have been widely available at a very low cost. There are extensive coal fields all across the country. Nationally, coal produces about 50% of our electricity, with a majority of it being used for base load. That means that coal plants produce a steady stream of electricity a majority of the time.

Natural gas however has skyrocketed in price over the last 6 years. It is widely used to generate electricity during peak times, typically on warmer days when we are cranking up the air conditioning. Natural gas plants can start up quickly and come to the rescue when needed, but the cost of fuel has gotten quite high recently.

Solar energy is very capable of producing peak electricity and is ideally suited for for it. Solar radiation is what causes us to need air conditioning in the first place. The utility companies have started taking notice of solar energy’s potential to generate electricity during peak demand.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://cleantechnica.com/2008/04/04/4-factors-slowing-solar-energy-growth-in-us/feed/