Green Friendly Businesses Lobby Hard For a Clean Energy Future

Boston-based networking group Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy, backed by Ceres, is organising the co-ordinated, multi-million dollar lobbying campaign for clean energy businesses and environmental organisations aimed at persuading Congress to support climate and energy legislation on Capitol Hill. “But the opposition will not stop, and neither can we.’’

By Mark Arsenault in Boston Globe (11 July 2010):

WASHINGTON — Stonyfield Farm is slapping its familiar cow logo on more than just containers of yogurt these days. The New Hampshire-based organic food maker is one of more than 50 local companies to lend its corporate name to a political lobbying campaign aimed at persuading Congress to support climate and energy legislation on Capitol Hill.

The green-friendly businesses — including many young tech companies not yet household names — are the regional face of a multimillion dollar lobbying effort aimed at key senators across the country. Their effort is backed by some of the world’s most recognizable consumer brands and Fortune 500 companies, and guided by experienced political hands with deep connections to the Obama and Clinton administrations.

The TV, radio, and print campaign, bolstered by in-person jawboning of legislators, demonstrates the political reach of green-technology and alternative energy companies, which have progressed from the cluttered basements of inventors and entrepreneurs into an emerging political force seeking to apply pressure at the highest levels of government.

“We’re among those businesses saying let’s get on with it’’ and pass climate and energy legislation, said Ken Colburn, environmental policy director for Stonyfield Farm, where efficiency efforts the past three years have cut carbon outputs while saving $7.8 million. “What will it take for Congress to get that message? Gosh, I really don’t know.’’

Solar companies, wind-energy developers, battery manufacturers, and others want the federal government to establish a system of raising money from emitters of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change — either through a direct carbon tax or vouchers purchased by polluters — and steer some of that money into the development of clean energy technologies.

The businesses are backing proposed climate and energy legislation sponsored by Senators John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent. The Kerry-Lieberman proposal calls for an auction of carbon-emission permits and would use the money generated to provide billions in incentives to reduce greenhouse gasses.

“Green groups and alternative energy companies view this as a cash cow,’’ said Ron Bonjean, a Washington political consultant and former top Republican adviser on Capitol Hill. “And with that they want to take the power in their own hands and start engaging, with either new lobbying or more intense lobbying.’’

But in the political arena, alternative energy groups are up against some of the most powerful lobbies in American politics — coal miners, oil producers, and electric utilities.

“The small green groups are definitely overshadowed,’’ said Bonjean. “It’s hard for them to make a dent in the process.’’

“It is profoundly difficult,’’ acknowledged Anne Kelly, who directs the Boston-based networking group Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy, which is helping to organize the lobbying campaign. “But the opposition will not stop, and neither can we.’’

Interests with deep pockets are spending heavily to shape the debate. The American Petroleum Institute, representing oil interests, spent about $1.5 million on lobbying in the first quarter this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The National Mining Association, representing coal companies and other miners, spent $716,000. And the petroleum giant Exxon Mobil: $3.4 million.

Last week, a group opposing climate change legislation called “CO2 is Green,’’ launched a $600,000, two-week TV and newspaper campaign against the Kerry-Lieberman bill, paid for in part with donations from fossil fuel interests, said Leighton Steward, the group’s founder, a former executive with Shell Oil and other petroleum companies.

Steward says the legislation would kill American jobs and raise the cost of electricity, gas, and food. He hopes to stop the bill and spark a new round of scientific debate about the effects of greenhouse gases. “I’d be happy to debate anyone,’’ said Steward, who insists that carbon is not harming the environment.

By contrast, the Clean Economy Network, a national advocacy group based in Washington that is helping to organize a lobbying effort targeting Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, spent $456,000 on lobbying in the first quarter.

As a Republican who has shown willingness to compromise with Democrats on economic legislation, Brown is considered by environmental advocates a potential key vote in overcoming a likely Republican filibuster against climate and energy legislation. But the freshman senator, who opposes establishing a price tag on carbon emissions, may be a difficult vote to get.

“Senator Brown believes new energy legislation should take a total approach to include strong incentives for clean energy sources, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and include energy efficiency and conservation — but not include a national energy tax or carbon pricing,’’ said his spokeswoman, Gail Gitcho, in a statement.

The lobbying campaign, through recent TV and newspapers ads, has urged Brown to be “bipartisan’’ and support climate and energy legislation with a price on carbon. A Boston TV ad, which ran the week of June 27, featured Tim Healy, chairman and chief executive of EnerNOC, a Boston energy efficiency consultant and software maker, who made a case that “Congress can no longer punt on energy and climate reform.’’ Though Brown is mentioned by name in the print ad, Healy does not name him on TV.

Healy, in an interview, said he agreed to do the ad in part because passing climate and energy legislation would improve his company’s bottom line.

“We believe the overall clean energy industry is going to gain significantly if we put a price on carbon,’’ he said.

The upstart lobbying effort is driven in part by company chief executives, technology professionals, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists. Their networking group evolved in early 2009 out of a constituency of green businesses that worked to elect President Obama, according to Tim Greeff, political director for the Clean Economy Network.

Historically, Greeff said, political representation for clean technology companies was limited and too narrowly focused.

 “So you’d have the wind association or the solar association, and they were all fighting for their specific piece of the pie, but it was a very small pie they were trying to carve up,’’ he said.

The companies expect to be much more influential now, as a big tent group, he said. “We’re pushing for the types of policies that will make all clean economy boats rise,’’ Greeff said. They have deliberately kept their policy goals extremely broad and general, to make the platform palatable to the largest possible collection of voices. “So we have Fortune 500s, consumer brands, clean tech companies, utilities, venture capitalists, institutional investors, and serious entrepreneurs.’’

The group maintains it is nonpartisan, though its director, Jeff Anderson, was the California cochairman of the 2008 presidential campaign of John Edwards. He also helped organize businesses to support Obama, and advised the campaign on media strategies, according to the group.

Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy was established in late 2008 by corporate members that include Levi Strauss & Co., Nike, Starbucks, and Timberland, the New Hampshire-based outdoor shoe and clothing maker.

The group is coordinated by the Boston-based nonprofit organization Ceres, a network of investors and environmental advocates, led by Mindy Lubber.

Lubber is a former director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, was a senior adviser to Michael Dukakis, and was appointed during the Clinton administration as the New England regional administration for the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The retail companies pushing for climate and energy legislation have business reasons for wanting carbon regulated to counter climate change, said Kelly. For some, participation may stem from a dependence on resources susceptible to extreme weather: Starbucks, for example, gets coffee beans from all over the globe, and Nike needs huge supplies of cotton.

“These folks have global supply chains,’’ said Kelly. “They’ve done a good job educating Congress on the global implications of climate change in terms of their businesses.’’

Betsy Blaisdell, senior manager of environmental stewardship at Timberland, said the company sees climate change as a direct threat to profitability.

“We make products for consumers to enjoy in the outdoors,’’ she said. “Climate change threatens this.’’ And with factories all over the world, Timberland is also trying to protect assets in low-lying areas that could be threatened by rising sea levels.

“When you look at places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, Thailand — these are clearly areas on the radar for devastating effects from climate change,’’ she said.

Source: www.boston.com and www.ceres.org/bicep

Repairing Ozone Hole Easier to Fix Than Climate Change

Nobel prize winner for Chemistry Paul Crutzen says it took decades to get the Montreal treaty enacted to start repairing the hole in the ozone layer. Now there’s the first hard evidence that global action to curb emissions of the ozone-depleting chemicals was starting to work. But it will be even more difficult to get a deal on greenhouse gas emissions. He knows entrenched behaviour and industrial systems cannot be changed abruptly. Cheryl Jones of The Australian attended the conference of Nobel Laureates at Lake Constance.

Cheryl Jones in The Australian (7 July 2010):

IN 1955, some of the world’s greatest scientists attending the annual meeting of Nobel laureates at Lindau in Germany, signed a manifesto opposing nuclear weapons.

They warned that the devices could annihilate entire peoples. This year, global warming was a dominant theme of the meeting, held last week in the picturesque town on a small island in Lake Constance.

Amid delays in getting deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, and with continuing fallout from climategate (with one of the scientists involved, Michael Mann, being cleared by Pennsylvania State University last week of any wrongdoing), many of the laureates moved to tighten the world’s focus on the alarming signs of a planet yielding to the stress of human activity.

One, Dutch scientist Paul Crutzen, of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, shared the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1995 for work on the hole in the ozone layer. Crutzen tells the HES it will be a tough task to hold global warming at2C against pre-industrial levels.

“We already have increased the temperature on the pre-industrial level by 0.7 degrees, so that’s 30 per cent of the 2 degrees,” he says. “I’m rather pessimistic in this regard.”

Crutzen’s research on the hole in the ozone layer helped lay the foundations of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which regulates the production of chlorofluorocarbons and halons, which caused the hole. Earlier this year, Australian scientists released results providing the first hard evidence that global action to curb emissions of the ozone-depleting chemicals was starting to work.

Crutzen points out that it took decades to get the Montreal treaty up. He says it will be even more difficult to get a deal on greenhouse gas emissions. It will take much longer to do something about the carbon dioxide problem, he says, adding that entrenched behaviour and industrial systems cannot be changed abruptly.

“Society as it exists now will be in danger,” he says. “That doesn’t mean that in the long run we won’t get a much better situation. But we will go through a very difficult phase.”

Asked if the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would recover from climategate, he replied: “Not quickly.”

Crutzen says more research is needed to reduce uncertainty in climate modelling.

“The climate system is very complex because of human interactions, and also a lack of scientific information, and maybe a lack of validity of some of the assumptions made in the models,” he says.

He also wants to see new blood injected into climate science, and one of the aims of the Lindau meetings is to inspire young scientists across the world. This year, 675 young researchers from 68 countries attended the conference, which was opened by Bettina Bernadotte, whose family has played a central role in the meetings since their inception in 1951. They heard lectures from 59 laureates.

Palaeoclimatologist Joel Pedro was among 14 top young Australian scientists, working in fields ranging from medicine, through nanotechnology to astronomy, invited to the meeting. A PhD candidate at the University of Tasmania and the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Pedro was nominated by the Australian Academy of Sciences.

He is studying Antarctic ice cores to gauge the impact on climate of changes in the energy output of the sun.

“There is some evidence that changes in solar activity triggered climatic changes in the past, perhaps including the little ice age in the northern hemisphere between the 17th and 18th centuries,” Pedro says.

He wants to find out if there is an isotopic signature of solar activity in the ice that could be lined up with other palaeoclimatic records. He is ground-truthing the method, using satellite records of solar activity stretching back to the 1950s. The 28-year-old scientist, who has long been in awe of Crutzen, is growing impatient with delays in action on climate change mitigation.

“Governments have so far failed to heed the advice of climate scientists,” he says.

In contrast, governments listened to the advice of Crutzen and his colleagues and enacted the Montreal Protocol. Because of this, the ozone hole is now repairing.

Pedro is concerned that the urgency of the greenhouse problem is not getting through to the public.

“There is a large gap between what one reads in the scientific literature about climate change and what one reads in the media,” he says.

And he worries that un-credentialled greenhouse sceptics are often given equal weight in the debate, when their views have not been subjected to the rigours of the scientific method and peer review.

Meanwhile, some scientists are considering alternatives to mitigation. Crutzen published a paper in the journal Climatic Change in 2006 canvassing the idea of injecting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to counteract global warming. The aerosols backscatter solar radiation to space, cooling the planet. Such geoengineering techniques, labelled solar radiation management, are controversial.

The 76-year-old scientist is surprised by the interest in the technique.

“I’m flabbergasted at how many scientists are now looking at this problem of geoengineering,” he says. “You see conferences everywhere.”

However, Crutzen is cautious, warning that the approach could have health and environmental side effects, creating a dilemma for policy makers. He favours emissions reduction and sees solar radiation management as a method of last resort.

Cheryl Jones attended the conference as a guest of the Foundation Lindau Nobel Prize Winners Meetings at Lake Constance.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

MBD Gets Budget Boost for Algae Bio Fuel & Feedstock Project

A Federal government funding boost of $5 million is key to commercialising the development of Bio Carbon and Capture Storage (Bio CCS) technology using Algal Synthesis – a process which consumes large quantities of greenhouse gases while producing low cost bio-oil and animal feedstock.

MBD announcement (8 July 2010):

Algal Synthesis Technology Boosted by Government Funding

Industry leader MBD Energy Receives $5M funding from Advanced Manufacturing CRC to fund Carbon Capturing and Recycling Projects

A Federal government funding boost of $5 million is key to commercialising the development of Bio Carbon and Capture Storage (Bio CCS) technology using Algal Synthesis – a process which consumes large quantities of greenhouse gases while producing low cost bio-oil and animal feedstock.

The funding has been provided through the Advanced Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre (AMCRC) which is partnering with MBD Energy to support two key projects – a research and development facility based at James Cook University (JCU) Townsville Campus and the construction of a commercial algal synthesiser at SE Queensland’s Tarong Power Station.

MBD Managing Director Andrew Lawson explained that MBD will match the AMCRC’s contributions with both parties providing $5M each for R&D projects, undertaken at JCU, including algal strain selection, culture optimization, algal harvesting and product development. Additional funding will also be directed towards the Tarong Power Station display project, which will initially be a one hectare pilot project, aiming to capture 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum and produce one tonne of algae each day.

“Our goal is to use the display project as a full scale module that could potentially be expanded to a commercial project of an 80 hectare site that will consume more 70,000 tonnes of Tarong Power Station’s flue-gas emissions, while at the same time producing 11 million litres of oil and 25,000 tonnes of feedstock,” he said.

“Algal Synthesis technology has the potential to provide positive and immediate solutions to many of the problems surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and MBD are grateful for the support of the AMCRC in this endeavour,” he said.

Continued funding of the R&D facility is also welcomed as the research team at JCU, which is led by Professor Rocky de Nys and Associate Professor Kirsten Heimann, is renowned as world leaders in algal research and they continue to improve and streamline the process of algal strain development, production and conversion.

AMCRC Group Managing Director, Bruce Grey said by providing funding for these projects, the AMCRC is reaffirming its commitment to innovation, renewable energy and next generation technology. He said these projects will be instrumental in determining the extent to which captured waste can be converted into supply chain input commodities, and ultimately establishing the potential of algal synthesis as a future commercial carbon sequestration option which could be employed at power stations and other carbon emitting facilities throughout the country.

BIO-CCS algal sequestration replicates the earth’s natural carbon cycle, but speeds the process up exponentially, taking as little as a single day to produce the resultant oil and other biomass.

The process of Algal Synthesis involves injecting the captured flue gases into a waste water growth medium infused with locally selected strains of micro algae and contained in an enclosed membrane system. The algae react to sunlight, growing and doubling its mass every 24 hours. The algae is harvested daily and crushed to produce algae oil, algae meal and clean water. The oil and meal are then sold by MBD to generate income to fund further expansion and the residual water is recycled.

According to MBD Energy Chairman, Jerry Ellis, current production forecasts indicate the sale of these commodities can be readily expected to offset the expenditure of building and operating such greenhouse gas emissions reduction facilities.

“The end result,” Mr Ellis said, “is this technology can deliver cleaner electricity production at the lowest possible cost to consumers, while significantly reducing net CO2 emissions and producing significant quantities of valuable oil and meal.”

About MBD Energy Limited

MBD is an Australian based public, unlisted technology company. The MBD Energy Board is chaired by former BHP Chairman, Jerry Ellis.

MBD has a joint research and development facility located at James Cook University (JCU), Townsville, Queensland. MBD Energy and its JCU team are regarded as international leaders in the use of captured flue-gases as feedstock to produce algal biomass for Bio-CCS. In addition to the project at Tarong Power Station, MBD Energy currently has two similar projects underway with Loy Yang Power in Victoria and Eraring Energy in New South Wales.

About Advanced Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre

The Advanced Manufacturing CRC is an Australian company limited by guarantee established and supported by the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. The AMCRC is chaired by former Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Ivan Deveson, AO.

Since being fully operational in June 2008, the Advanced Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) has played an important role in facilitating the transformation and creation of an innovation driven Australian Advanced Manufacturing industry. Our value proposition is simple: We co-invest with industry and public sector research organisation in innovation for sustainability.

Source: www.mbdenergy.com and www.amcrc.com.au

Great Expectations: Antarctic Core Clues To Higher Sea Level Rise

The lead author of the next international climate change assessment says his Antarctic ice research supports predictions of a doubling in the rate of sea level rise over the next century. Professor Tim Naish says rock cores drilled from the Antarctic coastline reveal how the Earth coped with a hotter climate 4 million years ago, when there was a similar climate to what we are heading towards in the next century with global warming.

ABC News Report (7 July 2010):

The Federal Government says it is too soon to act on the latest projections of a doubling in the rate of sea level rise within a century.

Researchers from New Zealand’s Victoria University made the projection based on drilling two kilometres below Antarctica’s western ice sheet.

Tim Naish, the lead author of the next international climate change assessment, says his ice research supports predictions of a doubling in the rate of sea level rise over the next century.

“We are looking at a sea level rise of around one metre, but potentially as high as two metres. That’s a significant increase on the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assessment report,” he said.

The IPCC will release its fifth assessment in 2014.

The World Wildlife Fund’s Kellie Caught says a recent Galaxy poll in Queensland shows growing support for policy action.

“Seventy per cent of the community support an emissions trading scheme and they support it being implemented now,” she said.

But a spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the Government disagrees.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has pledged to continue negotiating an emissions trading scheme if re-elected.

Professor Naish’s findings will be presented at the Australian Earth Sciences Convention in Canberra.

He says some researchers have forecast a two-metre increase in sea levels within the next century, but his studies support only a one-metre increase.

Professor Naish says rock cores drilled from the Antarctic coastline reveal how the Earth coped with a hotter climate 4 million years ago.

“It sounds a long time ago but it was the last time that the Earth had a climate that’s very similar to the climate that we are heading towards in the next century with global warming,” he said.

“In fact the earth was a very similar looking place to what it is today.

“The West Antarctic ice sheet had melted – [that] contributed five metres of sea level rise. The Greenland ice sheet had melted contributing another seven metres.”

Source: www.abc.net.au

Solar Impulse Night Flight Success & Plastiki Crosses the Pacific

Now that the Solar Impulse has shown that flying at night using solar energy stored during the day has been proved, the project can start pushing the human and technological limits further. Meanwhile, the boat made of thousands of plastic bottles, the Plastiki  is on the final leg of her epic journey from San Francisco to Sydney. 

Report on Solar Impulse:

The Solar Impulse HB-SIA, with André Borschberg at its controls, successfully landed this morning (8 July 2010) at 09:00, to the cheers of a crowd of supporters who came to celebrate this great milestone.

For more than 26 hours, André Borschberg expertly piloted the aircraft with its 64 meter wingspan. The plane was up in the air yesterday for the whole day, then through the entire night, flying solely on solar energy. This flight is the longest and highest in the history of solar aviation!

“I’ve been a pilot for 40 years now, but this flight has been the most incredible one of my flying career. Just sitting there and watching the battery charge level rise and rise thanks to the sun… And then that suspense, not knowing whether we were going to manage to stay up in the air the whole night. And finally the joy of seeing the sun rise and feeling the energy beginning to circulate in the solar panels again!” These were the emotional words of André Borschberg, CEO and co-founder of the Solar Impulse project, spoken on leaving the cockpit. “I have just flown more than 26 hours without using a drop of fuel and without causing any pollution!”

“Bravo André! You have just proved that what I have been dreaming about for the last 11 years, is possible”, cried out Bertrand Piccard, initiator and President of the project, the moment the Solar Impulse HB-SIA touched down. He went on to say that “This is a crucial step forward, it gives full credibility to the speeches we hold since years about renewable energies and CleanTechs and allows us now to get closer to the perpetual flight without using a drop of fuel!” He then ran over to hug his partner, both men full of tears.

“Such success would not have been possible without all the hard work put in by an exceptional team”, said Claude Nicollier, head of the Solar Impulse test flight programme.

“The success also belongs to Solvay, Omega, the Deutsche Bank and all our partners without whom this demonstration of the potential of renewable energy and new technologies would not have been possible”, added the two Solar Impulse founders in chorus.

Flight report
Pilot: André Borschberg, CEO and Co-founder
Take-off time: 07/07/2010 – 06h51
Landing time: 08/07/2010 – 09:00
Flight duration: 26 hours 09 min
Maximum speed: 68 knots (ground speed)
Average speed: 23 knots
Maximum altitude: 8564 m (above sea-level)

The success of this first night flight by a solar-powered plane is crucial for the further course of the Solar Impulse project. Now that the HB-SIA’s ability to remain flying at night using solar energy stored during the day has been proved, we can start pushing the human and technological limits further. The next important milestones for Solar Impulse will be the crossing the Atlantic and the around the world flight, using the second prototype which goes into construction this summer.

Source: www.solarimpulse.com

On its way to Sydney

Report on News.com (13 July 2010):

A weekend of wild weather with wind gusts over 60 knots contrasted with the light breezes the Plastiki encountered when she left Noumea last Wednesday to sail the final leg of her epic journey from San Francisco to Sydney. 

The Plastiki,  the 18.2m (60’)  catamaran engineered from approximately 12,500 reclaimed plastic bottles and srPET,  a fully and uniquely recyclable material,  originally set sail from San Francisco in March to sail 7,500 nautical miles to Sydney to raise awareness about plastic waste in our oceans. 
 
With strong winds from the SSE testing the boat’s innovative construction in the toughest conditions encountered during the voyage to date, the Plastiki now has approximately 700 miles to sail to Sydney and is due here late July.   
 
“Gusts over 60 knots are a fair amount of wind for any boat but Plastiki handled it well,”  skipper, Jo Royle, the only female on board said. 
 
Other crew members on board Plastiki include:  expedition leader and Adventure Ecology founder, David de Rothschild, co‐skipper David Thomson, Matthew Grey,  Max Jourdan and Vern Moen. 
 
“We’re really excited to be finally heading for Sydney.  It’s been an amazing voyage seeing first‐ hand the impact of plastic on our oceans and visiting island communities impacted adversely by the waste we all generate.  We know that Australians are deeply concerned about minimising their plastic waste – their actions to embrace reusable shopping bags and even ban plastic water bottles in some communities underscore this,  but there’s much more we can all do,”  David de Rothschild said. 
 
Made from approx.  12,500 reclaimed plastic PET bottles and featuring the latest in sustainable design technology, the Plastiki is a wonder of engineering and innovation.

“It’s about recognising that waste is fundamentally a design flaw.  If we apply cyclical ‘cradle‐to‐cradle’  philosophies rather than linear thinking we can illuminate waste at source,” David de Rothschild said. 
 
Once the Plastiki arrives in Sydney, the vessel will be on public display at the Australian National Maritime Museum,  Darling Harbour for one month.  Special events include talks by David de Rothschild and the crew as well as a public open day at the Museum.     
 
The Plastiki expedition is a platform to fuel conversation and find unique solutions to reduce,  reuse, recycle, rethink and ultimately refuse our use of single use disposable plastic. One of Plastiki’s global goals is to see a reduction in the amount of human made waste heading out to landfill and sea. We believe that with a small shift and some smart thinking it’s achievable if we work together on making small changes in our lives like the MyPlastiki pledge.  
 
To follow the adventure, feed your curiosity, track the crews’ individual stories, witness the challenges that our oceans and its inhabitants face and learn what you can do for our Planet,  please log into the expedition’s online mission control:  www.theplastiki.com for regular updates, GPS positioning, crew blogs, photography and mini‐films.

Source: www.news.com.au

As at 13 July at midday the Plastiki had been at sea for 115 days, once departing San Francisco, that amounted to 7380 nautical miles and 2760 hours, meanwhile 6900 million plastic bottles had been used in the US alone!

Track the Plastiki on www.theplastiki.com

New Fund to Help Business Turn Green From the Inside Out

“Green” investment funds typically aim to avoid investing in polluters, but a new fund aims to attack the enemy from within. An investment vehicle claimed to be “the world’s first climate change advocacy fund” was launched by Australian Ethical Investments with the support of The Climate Institute. .

Garry Shilson-Josling for AAP ( 8 July 2010):

“Green” investment funds typically aim to avoid investing in polluters, but a new fund aims to attack the enemy from within.

An investment vehicle claimed to be “the world’s first climate change advocacy fund” is being launched on Thursday.

Australian Ethical Investments already offers a range of funds, but so far it has followed the standard model – investing as far as possible in firms which are judged to be doing the right thing socially and environmentally.

“We actively seek out investments that are positive for society and the environment and avoid investments involved in harmful activities,” it says on its website.

But the new fund marks a distinct departure.

The “climate advocacy fund” (CAF) will have no qualms about buying shares in firms judged to be ethically dubious, even those pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow.

Its aim is to use shareholder muscle to call the big polluters to account.

The Climate Institute, a non-profit group set up in 2005 to promote climate change solutions, is an enthusiastic cheerleader for the fund.

In a media release issued in support of the fund’s launch, the institute’s business director, Julian Poulter, said companies included in the S&P/ASX 200 index were responsible for about half of Australia’s carbon emissions.

“Yet few high emitters have strategies which align with what is required to support the Copenhagen accord,” he said.

In its submission to the conference convened by the United Nations in Copenhagen in December, Australia promised to reduce greenhouse gas emission by at least five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, or as much as 25 per cent, depending on how much other nations were prepared to do.

That same month, the Senate gave the federal government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) its final rebuff.

But carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not only opaque to radiated heat, they are impervious to politics as well.

CPRS or no CPRS, greenhouse gases continue to intercept outgoing long-wave radiation and warm the globe.

April was not only the month the Rudd government put the CPRS on ice until 2013 at the earliest.

It was also the month the global surface temperature index compiled by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies hit a record high for a 12-month period, 0.66 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average.

Australian Ethical Investments sees this policy vacuum as an opportunity.

“There is a significant responsibility and opportunity for investment markets, and a fund such as this, to step into the void left by the failure of the political process,” said its executive director James Thier.

The aim is to use the fund’s status as a major shareholder to work at changing firms from within, while at the same time making money from the investments.

It’s a matter of having your low-carbon cake and eating it too.

Or, as Mr Thier said: “Investing in the CAF is about making money and making a difference”.

The fund’s initial focus will be to encourage companies to produce improved emissions disclosures, and to put high-carbon capital spending under the microscope.

There would be two stages to the process, Mr Thier said.

“The first one is we’ll actually be putting resolutions, the fund itself will be putting resolutions to the companies in regard to disclosure.”

As a result, the resolutions would be included in papers considered by company boards and the agendas of annual general meetings.

“And we’ll be then trying, in combination with other industry bodies, trying to get support for those resolutions.

“Those resolutions will be looking to get further information from the companies to identify their carbon risks, to identify whether they’re taking into account what they need to in a more carbon-constrained world, in regard to government regulations, those sorts of things,” Mr Thier said.

The Climate Institute, although not part of the funds management business, will be doing more than just shouting its support from the sidelines.

“They will, along with other organisations but in a stronger context, be assisting us with the resolutions and be working on the formulation of the resolutions,” Thier said.

Aside from its environmental aims, the fund will not be structured controversially.

The fund will invest in S&P/ASX 200 companies, with investments weighted according to a measure of their “economic footprint”, based on metrics like cash flow and dividends rather than according to their weight in the index, usually based on share market capitalisation.

“Economic footprint weighting is a low cost approach to portfolio construction, which has historically paid investors a return in excess of broad market indices,” the investment manager said in its fact sheet.

Australian Ethical said the new fund would be open to everyone, from individuals to institutional investors.

Australian Ethical had $612 million of funds under management at the end of 2009, a 21 per cent  increase from a year earlier.

Source: www.news.smh.com.au

Climate Spectator: Beware the coming climate storm

A moment is approaching when science and markets will collide, but then merge, with chilling consequences for investors who miss the moment, and great excitement for those who are well prepared, says Paul Gilding in his first article for Climate Spectator. Take a look at this new daily online news service edited by Giles Parkinson, on green business, clean technology, carbon markets and climate change policy.

A climate storm for investors

By Paul Gilding  in the Climate Spectator (12 July 2010):

Beware the coming climate storm. A moment is approaching when science and markets will collide, but then merge, with chilling consequences for investors who miss the moment, and great excitement for those who are well prepared.

The signs are all around us now. Signs that a storm of climate action will soon rage through the economy, sweeping away denial and, along with it, those companies, politicians, investors and industries that aren’t ready.

Signs such as our past two opposition leaders and prime ministers being removed with climate change a central issue in their downfalls. Signs such as 2008 being the first year when the money invested in new renewable energy generation projects was greater than that invested in new fossil fuel energy generation. Signs such as the past decade being the hottest on record, as of course each decade has been since 1980. Signs such as the first new car company IPO in the US for half a century being a disruptive electric car company.

There is great investment and excitement now in renewables, with more than $100 billion invested in 2008 and the same in 2009, despite the uncertain financial climate. Yet we see growth in coalmines, new coal export facilities and a lack of action in politics in Australia and the US. What is an investor to do with such confusing signals?

Simple. Observe the science, because the science drives everything else.

The facts are now very straightforward on the problem and its causes, as stated by the peak US science body The National Academies of Sciences. It said last month the science of climate change is in the category of those theories that had “been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts”.

So this is not a philosophy or a political viewpoint. These are facts. Smart investors deal in rational analysis, not ideological perspectives or wishful thinking. As US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

So if you believe in facts, you will be understand that science will, in the end, overcome resistance and denial, as argued by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from the University of WA: “The laws of physics will relentlessly assert themselves, unswayed by public opinion, political shenanigans, or elections. Ultimately, the laws of physics will speak so loudly that no amount of wishful thinking can prevent them from being heard.”

The reason we can be so confident that this storm, when it hits, will be ferocious and effective at driving change, is by considering what happens when science meets markets. The science dictates that when we act it will now have to be dramatic action.

We know that to avoid catastrophic risk we must keep warming below two degrees and, as a result, this is the target agreed to by governments from US, to China, to India to Australia. If you don’t like political metrics then consider that this is also the target endorsed by hundreds of global corporations from GE to Rio to HSBC.

Acting as late as we are, achieving this target will require us to virtually eliminate CO2 emissions from coal oil and gas within a few decades. This means eliminating whole industries and replacing them, which is where the science meets the market.

Markets are particularly good at challenges such as this, using what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpter called “creative destruction”. Markets are unconcerned about collateral damage and friendly fire. They won’t deliver the change steadily or calmly. Markets don’t play politics and will have no regard for sunk capital or prior commitments.

When we act on climate this will be creative destruction on steroids, with the resulting economic storm wreaking havoc and wiping out companies and whole sectors, while creating tomorrow’s new economy and corporate giants. It will be volatile, chaotic and exciting for investors, with fortunes made and lost based on the quality of judgements.

It’s hard to look at today’s politics and investment strategies and accept this analysis. It’s hard to imagine so many people being so wrong. It was also hard to imagine, in 2007, that the world’s governments would nationalise banks and car companies and spend trillions bailing out the financial system. It was hard to imagine, in the US in 1940, that the coming four years would see military spending go from 1.6% to 37% of GDP and that government would take over and direct the economy, with actions such as banning the production of private vehicles. In hindsight, though, such things are always obvious. And with the benefit of hindsight in 10 years’ time, the coming climate storm will have been obvious as well.

There is only question you have to ask yourself when you see the signals that are now flashing in bright neon lights, screaming “warning, warning, everything is about to change”: Am I ready?

Take a look at Climate Spectator, this new daily online news service edited by Giles Parkinson, on green business, clean technology, carbon markets and climate change policy. Like abc carbon express, it is a free subscription service. Go online to register.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

World Cup Scoop: Kick Goals & Generate Energy

The World Cup has unearthed a lot of football talent, but thanks to Luke Whistler of the FWR Group, it also uncovered a great scoop. A soccer ball that generates and stores energy while it’s being kicked around. It generates enough energy to power an LED light or charge a small electronic device–which may not seem like much power. But in Africa, it could literally mean the difference between life and death.

By Brian Merchant in PlanetGreen:

It’s a pretty ingenious idea, there’s no doubt about that: a soccer ball that generates and stores energy while it’s being kicked around. It generates enough energy to power an LED light or charge a small electronic device–which may not seem like much power. But in Africa, it could literally mean the difference between life and death.

Not to get melodramatic there, but it’s true in a sense. A common way for developing nations to get light is to burn kerosene lamps. And these lamps are terribly harmful to human health—when burned indoors, they create an effect that’s equivalent to inhaling two packs of cigarettes a day. It’s hard to determine how many deaths are caused by kerosene, but there’s no doubt there are far too many.

There’s also the environmental impact to consider—kerosene lamps also contribute 190 million tons of carbon emissions to the atmosphere a year, or 38 million cars’ worth. So wouldn’t it be nice if all those dangerous, polluting kerosene lamps could be replaced with a community-building, exercise-promoting game? Indeed it would.

Green Inc. explains how the sOccket ball would work:

Early prototypes of the ball use an inductive coil mechanism similar to the technology found in shake-to-charge flashlights. The movement of the ball forces a magnet through a metal coil that “induces” voltage in the coil to generate electricity. For each 15 minutes of play, the ball can store enough energy to illuminate a small LED light for three hours.

The idea is fast gaining traction–soccer is incredibly popular in many developing nations, Africa included. Players are known to kick the ball around for 8 hours a day–so why not convert that into usable energy?

The group behind sOccket, which initially conceived the idea as a class project at Harvard, recently tested the ball in South Africa. It seemed to be a hit, even though it’s not quite on par with normal balls: “Obviously, this won’t be a regulation ball,” Ms Lin, one of the founders, told Green Inc. “You won’t see David Beckham using it. But it’s a big improvement over some of the makeshift balls the kids create from things like old plastic bags.”

Now, the group is faced with finding a way to make enough sOcckets to deploy to developing nations. But they’ve already got a plan:

Using a “buy one-give one” model, the sOccket team hopes to sell the ball in Western markets, as a high-end tech gadget, then use the profits to distribute the balls at little or no cost in poor countries through development organizations like Whizz Kids United.

It seems like a fine idea, if development issues can be overcome—they may be difficult to mass produce. This will definitely be an idea to watch.

Source: www.planetgreen.discovery.com and www.fwrgroup.com.au

Lucky Last: Carbon Pricing Is Left, Right & Centre

Policymakers, economists, industry and environmentalists all broadly agree that Australia needs to move to a lower emissions trajectory, and that the single-most important tool is to put a price on carbon emissions. Australian industry has been factoring in for years that there will eventually be a price on carbon. Most industry players want an end to policy uncertainty. Industry fought hard over the carbon pollution reduction scheme, but just like with the mining tax, the fight is over the rules and over who pays how much, not over the need for reform itself. Frank Jotzo writes in The Age.

Frank Jotzo in The Age (8 July 2010):

Carbon pricing is central to any national strategy to cut emissions.

IF THE government is re-elected, can it deliver a carbon price for Australia? Prime Minister Julia Gillard has flagged that a consensus about climate action needs to be reached first. A broad community consensus of this kind existed about two years ago, then it eroded amid a global campaign against the science of climate change, disappointment about Copenhagen, confusion about emissions trading, and political mud-slinging. But there is a clear way forward.

The temptation for the Gillard government might be to announce some climate projects before the election, and go slow on the issue after the election. But that would fail the country on a long-term issue that simply will not go away, and would guarantee political pain if the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate, as is highly likely.

Policymakers, economists, industry and environmentalists all broadly agree that Australia needs to move to a lower emissions trajectory, and that the single-most important tool is to put a price on carbon emissions. And there is increasing realisation that our collective Copenhagen hangover stems mostly from overblown expectations and misperceptions. In particular, the mistaken notion that China is not doing anything has been put to rest with an ambitious target to cut the carbon intensity of China’s economy.

US President Barack Obama has been facing an uphill battle on emissions trading, but still it is likely there will be federal US legislation to cut carbon emissions, in addition to the policies already in place in many states. And emissions trading itself is far from dead, with the EU pushing on, New Zealand just having introduced it, and other countries preparing it.

Australian industry has been factoring in for years that there will eventually be a price on carbon. Most industry players want an end to policy uncertainty. Industry fought hard over the carbon pollution reduction scheme, but just like with the mining tax, the fight is over the rules and over who pays how much, not over the need for reform itself.

Amid the wrangling with business, the government failed to explain its scheme to the public, but made ever more concessions to emitters. NGOs, think tanks and universities also missed the mark, spending most of their effort arguing over nuances rather than explaining fundamentals. Add to that the fact that both major parties used climate policy as a political wedge, and it is easy to see why public support for the scheme evaporated.

The next government has the chance to cut through the confusion and complexity of the scheme, and make a start with a simpler way of pricing carbon. There are several ways of doing this, including charging a carbon tax to large emitters, or at the point of production or import of coal, gas and oil. And there is a middle way between the carbon pollution reduction scheme and a carbon tax. It is to use the basic building blocks of the emissions trading system, but bring it online with a predetermined (and rising) carbon price. ”Fixed-price emissions trading” along these lines was proposed by Ross Garnaut as a viable second-best option, and it is now supported by the Greens. It gives certainty about carbon prices in the near term, and allows shifting to a fully market-based system down the track, without the need to then begin a completely new system. And it could be implemented quickly.

The next government will also have the chance to revisit industry assistance, and to allocate more of the revenue to consumers rather than shareholders – which would be in line with Gillard’s emphasis on fairness and economic opportunity for all.

If the Coalition wins the election, then carbon pricing is ostensibly off the agenda. But despite the ”great new tax on everything” rhetoric, it is a fair guess that a Coalition government would not be able to escape the logic of carbon pricing for long. It is worth remembering that the Howard government supported emissions trading during its last year in office.

Both major parties have endorsed a 5 per cent cut in emissions from 2000 to 2020, with the possibility of cuts up to 25 per cent. The emissions targets other countries have put on the table at Copenhagen imply Australia should move to a target of around 15 per cent, according to the government’s criteria submitted to the international community. Achieving those kinds of reductions will mean a bigger effort than many people think, because Australia’s economic and population growth means the underlying carbon trend is up.

A range of policies will be needed to turn around Australia’s emissions trajectory, including support for the development of clean energy and the deployment of renewables, standards for energy efficiency, research and regulation to retain more carbon in forests and soils, and investment in cutting emissions in developing countries such as Indonesia.

But carbon pricing is the central plank of any viable strategy to cut carbon throughout the economy and to do it without unnecessary cost. Consensus on that is all but inevitable. But it will take some political will.

Frank Jotzo is fellow at the Australian National University Crawford School of Economics and Government and deputy director of the ANU Climate Change Institute. He was economic advisor to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Go to your carbon book store

There’s a lot about books and authors this week. Of course books store carbon but many of them also contain great content. Anna Clark’s “Green, American Style”; Jon Dee’s “Sustainable Growth”; Flemming Bermann’s “Global Warming for Young Minds”, Simon Tay’s “Asia Alone” and a New Scientist review of “The Climate Files” by Fred Pearce. This “book-burst” is not because we’ve been feeling guilty about promoting our own “The ABC of Carbon” book, but there is a lot out there worth taking notice of and that’s our job to let you have it! Tim Flannery always has something worthwhile to listen to, this time some timely advice for Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Adaptation and the fate of the Pacific Islands comes into focus this week, along with news of the demise of South East Asia’s only glacier. Europe is leading the world with its commitment to renewable energy and IBM is a stand-out for the environment. Plug in electric vehicles are coming to California, while President Obama invests billions in solar plants. Buildings, which come in for added scrutiny as big emitters, also offer great opportunity for efficiency measures, while Giles Parkinson get stuck into Australia for its very poor energy efficiency ranking. Carbon Planet and Greenfleet have some things to say about both the demise of the Greenhouse Friendly program and what’s replacing it. Let’s offset what we cannot reduce. – Ken Hickson