Conservative Heart-throb Newt Gingrich and Liberal Lovie, Nancy Pelosi have both served as third in line to the Presidency, and leaders of their respective Republican and Democrat Parties. What could motivate them to appear together, on the same couch talking about global warming except the shared belief that this is an important, non-partisan issue?
At Standard Carbon, we have been signing up members of Congress to be carbon neutral. Our Carbon Neutral Campaign program, and Carbon Footprint Worksheet have been specially designed to help campaigns quickly calculate their CO2 and then purchase the best verified carbon offsets produced from projects in the United States.
Only about 8% of the American public believes global warming should not be address as a political issue, and the vast majority of these folks are members of the Republican Party which Newt Gingrich once led. This makes it all the more impressive that Newt would have such political guts to stand up for what he thinks. Check out the video:
With the absence of Federal rule making, Governors of the United States have led the charge on reducing CO2 and designing new greenhouse gas markets. In many ways, the debate over “should we do about climate change,” is already over. Something is being done and the voters are demanding it.
In a NYT/CBS poll (2007), 30% of Republicans and 70% of democrats polled believed that global warming is a serious problem. CBS/NYT Environment Poll
In the same poll, 78% of all respondents said that they “think it is necessary to take steps to counter the effects of global warming right away.” Only 8% said that the government should do nothing (poll attached).
The leading bill in the US Senate regarding climate change, the Lieberman-Warner Bill, assumes global warming is a threat. This bill has a cap 2.5 times more severe than the current phase of the Kyoto market, and extends past 2050. (Kyoto ends in 2012)
California has already begun trading in advance of the AB 32 (California Climate Action Registry) cap and trade market. This cap-and-trade market becomes compulsory for California CO2 emitters in 2012.
In August this year, six western states and two Canadian provinces (AZ, CA, NM, OR, WA, UT, BC & MTB) will announce the details of their plan to create a western regional carbon market requiring a 15% reduction in CO2 by 2020.
The seven states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (CT, DE, ME, NH, NJ, NY, & VT) will begin to auction carbon emission permits at the end of this year with official auctions starting January 2009. These states have been trading carbon offsets since 2007.
More than 20 US states have adopted renewable portfolio standards requiring renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. Federal renewable standards have been proposed.
The global market for Carbon dioxide (carbon offsets) was over $62 Billion dollars in 2007. It will far exceed $100 Billion this year.
In a poll of 3,703 participants in the global carbon market by PointCarbon, 80% believe that there will be a post-2012 international agreement to replace Kyoto, regardless of the United States’ participation.
In the same poll, 60% believe that the US Federal government will participate in this agreement. Existing carbon markets in the US will almost certainly allow some participation, as the price for carbon credits could be cheaper in a global market.
Of course not! When the price for carbon Offsets rises, like it has been doing for the past months, it brings more projects to the market. We expect to be able to invest in more diverse projects now that the price is higher because new environmental projects will become more financially feasible.
The sentiment that I saw most often from speakers at the Heartland Conference was that Global Climate Change was happening, but not significantly due to human caused CO2. This was not a surprise, as the catch line of the conference was global warming is “Not a Crisis.”
I was flabbergasted to hear the steady criticism of a free market system for addressing climate change, yet the frequent advocacy for a carbon tax. The reasoning throughout the conference went like this:
Scientists: Climate Change is occurring (both cooling and warming)
Scientists: Humans don’t seem to contribute to global warming as much as natural phenomena
Economists: There are other more pressing problems to fix
Politicians: If we are going to do anything, we might as well do a carbon tax.
Most people attending were Libertarians, Republicans and Moderate Democrats–the ones who most often get behind a free market…but why the conclusion that a carbon tax is in order?
I heard a lot about “internalizing externalities,” with a “revenue neutral carbon tax” but never once “supply and demand,” “allocation” or “price signal.” How can you really talk about economics and never say these terms? Is cap-and-trade that hard to understand? Price for pollution = innovation, allocation, & less CO2/greenhouse gas.
This weekend I am attending the Heartland Conference on Climate Change in New York. This is a gathering of scientists and policy makers that dispute the threat of Global warming.
I am attending as a sponsored attendee–They have waived the registration fee and paid for my airfare too attend.
So why would someone who sells Carbon Offsets be invited to a gathering like this? Lets just say I am interested to find out. I will report what I learn about climate change and the raging debate right here in the Blog.
I intend to learn something from this conference. Whether I agree or disagree with the co-attendees, I am confident that this is a group of people who value the truth.
We launched our federal campaign package at the beginning of this month to help Congressman, Senators, and even Presidential Candidates keep track of their global warming pollution and offset it. So far, so good.
I have been calling Congressional staffs all day and usually get in touch with a Communications Director of Chief of Staff within two tries. Then I email them this form to calculate their carbon footprint.
If you are still not convinced that climate change is actually happening, why bother fighting its solution? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will result in a more efficient use of limited resources, like oil and gas, and it will help us achieve energy independence and efficient use of renewable energy.
This video makes a good point: inaction on climate change is not an option. As the climate continues to change, this will become increasingly apparent. If climate change is debunked, then I will eat my words and be happy! Just watch the video…
Soon there will be a biofuel station on every corner and clean renewable energy will compete with the big oil that has so long had a hold on our gas caps.
The US EPA has been developing standards and reporting for renewable fuel producers in compliance with federal laws that require a minimum amount of renewable energy.
The Biodiesel Board has put together a large, interactive map of refueling stations all over the country. Take a look and you will be surprised how it can actually be possible to opperate a vehichle exclusivly on biofuels.
B100 biodiesel is responsible for 78% less CO2 emissions than typical fossil fuel diesel. This translates into an carbon offset requirement of about 5lbs for each gallon of biodiesel, or right around $.01 for every four miles.
This means that if you want to eliminate your carbon footprint by reducing your emissions and then offsetting, biodiesel is a great place to start.
On Hundred years ago, ships were still build with sails in case their engines failed on ocean crossing voyages. Today, high energy prices and conscientious use fossil fuels have brought that ancient technology back into commercial use.
A German company called SkySails has designed a giant kite to help drag large ship across the ocean. The sail pays for itself with fuel savings, and the shipping company can decrease a portion of their direct emissions.
When we talk about decreasing carbon footprints, usually a futuristic technology comes to mind. This video shows how simple changes can go a long way without the wait.
