When energy companies look at the cost of building a new, natural gas fired power plant they use a metric for investment called the spark spread to calculate the cost of natural gas and the potential profit from converting its energy into electricity.  A combined cycle gas fired turbine can convert the energy in natural gas with >80% efficiency.

When a coal power plant is being considered, the dark spread is used in a similar way to compare the cost of coal with the value of potential electrical sales.    The larger the spread, the more potential for revenue and profit.

Climate change and external costs related to climate mitigation and offsetting have historically not been included in these calculations.  But more and more, they are a factor and become relevant-especially because the global warming potential of coal and natural gas power is different for the same amount of energy, creating a potential advantage for natural gas.

So what is the “fart spread” that I am proposing?  This would be a term for calculating the potential profitability of recovering bio-gas and other waste gasses for use.  Right now the “fart spread” is negative in most cases, i.e. it is more expensive to recover the potential resources than the value they will have on the market place.  Carbon credits have the potential to bridge this gap, but with the way current climate change policy making has gone in the US, that is not likely to happen soon.

The Washington Governor will rely on reducing cars in a state without transportation alternatives

If you have visited Seattle, you may have noticed that there is no mass transit.  A fleet of buses try to bumble through busy streets and highways, but they might contribute to more gridlock than they alleviate. Washington’s Governor has suggested drivers cut back, but this zero-sum solution making is what gives climate change advocacy a bad name among conservatives.

The solutions need to be constructive, collaborative, and intelligent.  Governor Gregoire’s errant policy making is going to make people angry at environmentalists, and contribute to severe leakage of polluting industries to regions where they are left alone.

For instance, if she successfully pushes through laws that restrict industry-such as commercial trucking or the manufacture of cement clinker in Washington State-then these industries will simply move out of state and take the jobs with them.  Cement from China is already cheap, and trucks have no problem crossing state lines to pick up a load.

Washington’s Governor needs to offer industry something in exchange for their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, otherwise the policies will not accomplish any positive affect for the environment.

There will need to be tax cuts or other incentives tied with reducing greenhouse gas. If state-or the federal government-imposes a cap on emissions, it will make businesses less competitive in the global economy unless there is a policy to make the investment profitable or revenue neutral.  If policy makers ignore this reality, the results will not be a reduction in pollution, but rather a movement of pollution to less regulated locations.

President Barack Obama is torn between the competing interests of two major supporters.  One, the Democrat Governor of Massachusetts and early campaign supporter Deval Patrick to build a windfarm off the coast of Cape Cod; the other, Senator Edward Kennedy whose ocean view would be changed by the proposed renewable facility.  In an article posted on Brietbart.com, it is clear that the roadmap to renewable energy has many tears, regardless of the political party.

If the President is set on spending trillions of dollars in stimulus over the next two years,  he ought to invest in infrastructure that will secure our energy independence.  This project will be litmus test of that intention.

Perhaps windmills will annoy elites with ocean front property–similar things must have occurred when Eisenhower built out the national highway system.  Good for Obama is that allowing this project to proceed will have the double benefit of securing renewable energy, and snubbing a special intrest group…if it gets approved.

When we start calling bureaucrats “czars” is it any wonder that we attract socialists?

The Washington Times has just uncovered the dirt on Barack Obama’s earth friendly pick for climate change Czar(ina)

This may prove to be one of the most difficult jobs in the new administration in terms of criticism and public attacks.  There will be roadblocks placed from the front by those who disagree about how to regulate carbon emissions, and then there will be many of volleys of arrows launch from the back by the environmental lobby who cant stand to think that any person but them could make money by cleaning up the Earth.

Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said  that “Carol Browner was chosen to help the president-elect coordinate energy and climate policy because she understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies; cooperation between federal, state and local governments; and partnership with the private sector.”

Those are good priorities for the office of “climate change czar,” but socialists are certainly not the ones who will make real progress on environmental problems.  Without regulating our economy further back into the pre-industrial age (god save us from recession),  there will need to be well managed and directed investments made by the private sector to update power plants, invent new energy saving technologies, discover new ways to trap and store green house gas etc.  The real changes come from investment by entrepreneurs who develop new methods and new technology, then apply them to make a profit.  Sorry, that is just how it works.

In the words of Robert Kennedy, “Obama’s vision of de-carbonizing our economy begins with a market-based carbon cap-and-trade system designed to put downward pressure on carbon emissions. He will invest billions to revamp the nation’s antiquated high-voltage power transmission system and press for cost-saving building and appliance standards that would cut our energy demand by half.”  These are goals every free market advocate could agree with.

This writer just hopes Obama’s newpick does not forget to do first things first, especially as the arrows begin to fly.

On Election Day, CNN Headline News interviewed Standard Carbon’s Brendan Woodward to discuss the carbon footprint of the presidential election. In the full interview, political hypocrisy was discussed as both candidates have proposed cap and trade regulations, but not chosen to follow them on a voluntary basis.

The climate change impact of the two candidates was large-requiring the equivalent carbon offsets of more than 18 square miles of new forest to grow for 10 years.  For Barack Obama, this would have required about $700,000 to purchase enough carbon offsets, or a mere 1% of his 3/4 of a billion dollar campaign budget.

Air travel, commuting, office space, paper, direct mail, meetings and event, fundraisers, and get out the vote (GOTV) activities all contributed to each carbon footprint.

Can we actually reduce CO2 if the president is full of hot air?  Perhaps.  Watch the short segment that aired Tuesday morning:

The US Presidential race has resulted in clouds of hot air.  Currently, Barack Obama leads John McCain in estimated CO2  gas emissions with over 77,000 tons to John McCain’s 58,000.  Combined, the carbon footprint of the two candidates is equal to planting 3 million trees.  Read our full report:

Barack Obama and John McCain Carbon Footprint Analysis

Unlike former candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, Obama and McCain have done nothing to offset their carbon footprints.  This has not kept them both from talking tough on climate change.

Candidates in races for US Congress to county council have taken action to fight climate change before election day through our carbon neutral campaign program.  They deserve a little respect.

1,000 guests are expected to attend the annual Washington Conservation Voters Breakfast this year.  We will supply 50 tons (100,000lbs) of carbon offsets for the event to make it carbon neutral.  This is equal to the pollution of 5,100 gallons of gasoline, or half of a tanker truck of fuel burned. It is also equivalent to the amount of carbon absorbed by 10 acres of Douglas Fir or 50 acres of grassland in a year.

We are happy to be working with the Conservation Voters to promote policies that protect the environment. Candidates that want to follow the lead of the Conservation Voters and become carbon neutral can calculate and offset the carbon footprint of the political campaign on this website!

We have contacted every Democrat congressional incumbent and asked them to make a commitment to carbon neutrality and offset the emissions from their election campaign.  This is not something unfamiliar to them.  Each member of , whether Democrat or Republican, has a carbon neutral DC Office through the Green the capitol initiative.  However, only individual action will make their campaign green.

The excuses from some congressional ‘leaders’ for not going green reflect on the pathetic approval rating that the current Congress has, which at a whopping 11% should not surprise.  “We don’t have enough time” was the excuse from John Conyers’ Democratic campaign which does not even have a Republican opponent.  Jackie Speier’s campaign in California responded that “this is a safe district, our race was settled at the primary.”   Frequent was the line that “it’s just too expensive.” This one we heard from Ed Perlmutter in Colorado and Ellen Tauscher in California who combined control nearly $2,000,000 in campaign funds, but could not afford $400-500 worth of carbon offsets.

Others, like congressman Jim McDermott’s campaign, are almost understandable, “we really don’t have a campaign, all that we do is go back and forth from the office to the bank and pick up checks.”  The reality is that most congressional “leaders” are just interested in keeping a low  profile and cashing checks when it gets close to election day.  Issues don’t matter.

We will keep trying…

Climate change is only part of the reason that we need to free our country from fossil fuel dependence.    This video is a memorable illustration of where our oil dollars can end up.  Enjoy!

Standard Carbon President Brendan Woodward  sat down for an interview with Joshua Hicks at the Bothell Reporter newspaper.  Their conversation centered on the effects of a cap and trade market on the local economy, and the hopeful prospects for a new take on energy policy.  Joshuas article brings attention to the shift in thinking over what it means to be green, and how Republican s and Democrats are defining that.