-
1. New TerraPass projects open for comments
-
2. Help the economy and the environment
-
3. Climate policy action: it's happening in California
-
4. England: Our windmills are bloody enormous!
-
5. Measuring emissions now federal policy
New TerraPass projects open for comments
TerraPass news
TerraPass has always prided itself on transparency. Today we're taking that one step further, and asking for your feedback on projects before we commit them to our portfolio.
We're admittedly excited to solicit stakeholder comments on our projects: first, we believe the stakeholder process is an important tool to ensure that all information about a project is collected before deciding whether it belongs in the TerraPass portfolio. Public comments have been used in the Kyoto system to such ends, and we're hopeful they could work well in the voluntary carbon markets as well.
Second, we believe this is an industry first. We're excited to be leading the way among our colleagues in the voluntary carbon market, and hope that this is a sign that competition will lead to even greater transparency.
Our new comment page
To help you along, we've prepared a Project Information Report (PIR) on each project (for carbon-nerds, this is like a lightweight PDD). The PIR provides information on the project design, location, ancillary impacts, and why we think it is a good use of TerraPass funds.
We're hoping for a wide variety of responses to these projects, everything from how our individual TerraPass members feel about them to policy-level questions around technical carbon credit issues to more general comments from the communities in which these projects are based.
Comments are open for 30 days, and we'll be reading all comments received, digesting them (no pun intended) and recommending a path forward (or not) for each project. If you have comments on the comment period itself, send them along as well, as we're always looking to improve.
Our goal, as always, is to provide our members with the highest-quality carbon offsets. This is just one more way that we hope to get the fullest possible set of information on each of our projects before committing to it as part of our portfolio. We look forward to hearing from you.
Finally, long time readers will know that transparency is one big difference between TerraPass and other carbon offset providers. If you have friends that are still wondering what TerraPass is all about, or you're new to TerraPass, we've formally laid out how TerraPass is different from other carbon offset providers, on a new page on the site, The TerraPass Difference. Check it out and let us know what you think.
Photo available under Creative Commons license from Flickr user Simon Groenewolt
Help the economy and the environment
Politics
California is already seeing a "solar boom"
Listening to a commentary on Marketplace yesterday evening, I was reminded of the conflict between consumerism and -- let's call it -- "environmental restraint". The basic premise of a stimulus package is to give consumers more cash to spend: consumers buy stuff; demand for stuff increases; jobs are created to make more stuff; more people have more jobs, earning more money and want to buy yet more stuff.
While more "stuff" may be good for the economy, it's rarely a positive thing for the environment. Stuff takes energy to produce, energy to transport, and energy to discard at the end of its useful lifetime.
And so with the natural wariness of someone that doesn't want to see the country dive into recession, I pondered the tension between economic stimulus and sound ecological responsibility.
Turns out I'm not the only one. In this week's Businessweek magazine, Pallavi Gogoi explores some similar themes. The article notes a growing awareness of the environmental effects of consumerism. Gogoi concludes:
The growing environmental awareness, and tougher economic times, could even influence the effectiveness of economic stimulus plans now being weighed by the Bush Administration and Congress. The kind of free spending the government hopes consumers will revert to might be difficult in this new mood.
But economic stimulus need not be bad for the environment. And, as the Sierra Club's Josh Dorner writes for Grist this week, some legislators are doing their best to give the environment some stimulus along with the economy. A range of credits and investment bonds has been approved for inclusion in the Senate stimulus package. Now it's down to the voting...
It can be possible to consume and be environmentally responsible (Smart Strip, anybody?), but it's not always easy. So a question for our readers: how do you do your consumer's duty to your country and your economy while also being a good environmentalist?
Photo available under Creative Commons license from Flickr user remintola.
Climate policy action: it's happening in California
Politics
As Americans voted in presidential primaries across the country today, few voters made their decisions based on the candidates' positions on global warming. That's because the leading candidates (McCain, Clinton, and Obama) all support a nationwide cap on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Only Romney is against a cap and his chances of winning are the slimmest.
Whoever ends up in the White House, many political analysts believe that climate change legislation could make it through the next Congress and be signed by the president. This will be a huge milestone. But even a promising proposal like the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (pdf) would require a lengthy EPA rule-making process before GHG levels start going down.
Action on climate policy is further along in individual states. California has passed a law to cut GHG emissions and several regional alliances of states (e.g., the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for nine states in the Northeast) are working together on similar efforts.
Last month, I represented TerraPass at a state hearing on implementing the California Global Warming Solutions Act, which Gov. Schwarzenegger signed in 2006. More than 250 people showed up at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) event in Oakland to dig into the nitty-gritty of getting the law to work. I was impressed by the thoughtful way California officials are considering all viable approaches to hit the GHG targets: reducing emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020 (about 25% less than business-as-usual scenarios) and then 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The state officials have completed a thorough baseline analysis of where GHG emissions originate in the state (e.g., utilities, manufacturing, transportation, etc). They have also identified voluntary, GHG-reducing "early actions" that companies and other emitters can take and receive credit for these reductions. And now they are figuring out industry by industry how to distribute the required reductions, which, in total, will get the job done. Both direct regulations and market-based mechanisms (e.g., cap-and-trade and offsets) will be part of the final plan.
Many industry representatives and staff members of environmental and consumer groups spoke at the hearing. People held different views on how best to write the rules. But nobody contested the fundamental goals of cutting GHGs. Once again, California is leading the way on environmental policy by designing an emission reduction program with a firm timeline for action decreed by law. Feds, take note!
England: Our windmills are bloody enormous!
Clean energy
The Guardian reports on a new horizontal axis windmill, that promises to help the UK satisfy its ambitious wind goals.
These are still on the drawing board, but are the latest in an attempt to create bigger and less maintenance-intensive windmills. This design is smart as it places moving parts at the bottom, rather than the top. Who really wants to do maintenance 144 meters above the North Sea? Add to the fact the the size means they generate roughly three times the power of a traditional wind turbine.
We think they're pretty awesome. Who knows whether they'll get over recent NATO concerns about wind farms and Radar.
Photo courtesy Grimshaw Architects
Measuring emissions now federal policy
Energy conservation & technologies
One of the more useful things that got tacked on to the recent omnibus federal spending bill was the requirement for the EPA to develop a federal registry to track industrial CO2 emissions.
Parsing out just how industrial emissions are measured is one of the stepping stones to implementing a cap and trade system. The EPA has 9 months to figure out a plan. Sutherland, Asbill, and Brennan have the gory details (pdf). They advise clients:
Businesses in the United States are about to be thrust into the process of having to actively assess and manage their carbon footprint.
Among the many questions we have would be how this would interact with voluntary registries like the EPA's current 1605(b) and the California Climate Action Registry.
The measure costs a paltry $3.5M million dollars, and we have to applaud this baby step. After all, we can't manage it, until we agree how to measure it.
Photo available under Creative Commons license from Flickr user chefranden
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment