An innovative solution to economic crisis and global warming debate that every environmentalist and business owner can agree on

If the scientific consensus is that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, then policy makers should focus on cutting emission, not filling the governments coffers with a carbon tax or auction.

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.

The best way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to build a marketplace for emissions that sets a price for pollution, not attempt to command and control behaviors through regulations.  Right now, there is talk of an EPA tax on greenhouse gas that would charge farmers around $150 for each cow and up to $20 per pig based upon their relative carbon footprints (New York Farm Bureau estimates).

This is a bad idea.  The tax will have no effect except to raise the price of farming and food products, and drive more family farms out of business.  The result will not be a reduction in greenhouse gas, rather a new burden for families trying to buy food and more destruction of the working landscape that connects Americans with the land.

First, where would the money from such a tax go?  Please don’t tell me that it will go into a “technology fund.”   That is simple political code for being lost in a bureaucracy.  The investments that need to occur in order to clean up the methane from these dairies are being made right now by entrepreneurs who see a valuable energy and environmental resource in the manure.

Second, this proposed tax is a misplaced penalty.  A good politician knows that taxing things is a good way to reduce them, and incentives are a good way increases a behavior.  Taxing cows will harm our single best source of milk…farms!  Instead, there should be a framework for creating incentives for measurable reductions in CO2.  That will let farmers figure out the best way for their farm to keep producing milk and to reduce CO2.  If farmers and investors are allowed to buy and sell their reduced pollution (create a carbon offset), then they will invest private money in the projects, and implement them in an efficient way.

At Standard Carbon, we are 100% in favor of reducing greenhouse gasses, but we are not in favor of destroying the livelihoods of American farmers or singling out and crippling the industries that create jobs and opportunity in our country.   We can have economic and environmental prosperity at the same time if we use a market based approach like cap and trade.

California state legislators appear likely to enact two bills aimed at creating stricter standards for the voluntary carbon offset market. One focuses on truth in advertising, the other on making tougher and more uniform certifications for projects, offset retailers and registries.

Is this simply another step in the maturation of the market? Or will it actually stunt the growth and development by imposing unnecessary regulation?

There has clearly been a backlash to the overnight boom of environmentally responsible consumer goods. Just when we’re getting used to buzzwords like sustainability and eco-friendly, others come along, such as green washing.

The potential pitfalls of the carbon market are enough to overwhelm even an educated consumer. How do can you know your offset won’t be sold again to someone else? Would the project you’re offsetting have happened anyway, even without your money? Transparency in advertising and certification are no doubt good things, especially when dealing with a relatively new product and uninformed buyers.

But this proposed legislation takes the responsibility of self-regulating away from the market just as it has begun to show the ability and maturity to do so. Despite the numerous certification standards currently out there, the 2008 report on the State of the Voluntary Carbon Market finds that consumers are learning to differentiate them in terms of quality.

Even more problematic is the language of the legislation. It outlines specific project types that meet the standards for credits. Forestry, methane capture and internal combustion reduction are mentioned. Projects which adversely impact “species, habitat, ecosystems, land use, biodiversity, air quality, water supply and quality, access to food or and production of food” won’t be eligible either. Whether inadvertently or not, setting that type of precedent will put a damper on the spirit of innovation that currently makes the carbon offset market exciting and ground breaking.

Yes, the voluntary carbon market is a little like the Wild West. It does need a healthy dose of transparency, and the buyer must always beware. But the market’s beauty has always been its ability to provide a free market solution that reduces carbon most efficiently by rewarding creativity and innovation. It’d be a shame to stifle that. Something about a baby and bath water comes to mind.

To learn more about the proposed bill, click here.

But can’t we all just get along?

I am always curious to see who is purchasing google adwords related to services in the carbon offset market, and when I typed in “carbon dioxide” this morning, the top advertisement was from a the American Nuclear Society.

Clearly they are reaching out in this time when global warming concerns run the table of policy making and public opinion. Should’nt we reach out to them?

I am tired of hearing an old generational argument about nuclear energy: that it only leads to war, meltdowns, strip mines etc. And I laugh when I see signs in California cities (like Santa Cruz, Berkley and Davis) declaring a “Nuclear Free Zone.” This kind of declaration strikes me as serious lunacy in a time when our planet needs some relief.

Can nuclear energy bring the relief? Obviously its not a silver bullet either (see post below), but when compared to building more coal power plants and burning more fossil fuels in our cars, it seems a better alternative.

The truth is, Nuclear energy has changed but too many minds have not. It needs to be recognized as one little part of the overall solution to climate change and energy supply. Disagree? Well, I promise to keep an open mind, but cant we all just get along?

The city of Portland oregon announced a scheme that is very close to a carbon tax. Here is what Portland, Oregon has decided: New homes built to the existing energy efficiency code will be taxed/fined, while homes that exceed the code by at least 45% efficiency will receive a reward.

Oregon already has one of the cleanest power grids in the country. Renewable energy is required, as well as a requirement for utilities to offset their emissions through the quasi-public nonprofit Climate Trust make Oregon’s leadership on global warming unquestionable.

Because the Oregon power grid is already so clean, mandating building efficiency standards will have little affect on greenhouse gasses compared to other cleanup efforts conducted elsewhere (For example, those generated efficiently as offset credits). The result could be a housing pinch that simply forces new construction out of the city limits.

This new law will require new government staff and bureaucracy for inspections and verification of the energy efficiency of new construction. I believe that this money could be better spent on renewable energy development, or continued funding of offsets through the Oregon Climate Trust. By moving upstream away from the users (homeowners) and toward the producers (power companies), the city government can use state agencies that already exist in Oregon to provide low emissions energy.