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.

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.

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.

In Texas there is an oil man. His name is T. Boone Pickens and he has pumped over 150 million barrels of oil.

Pickens is a wildcatter, but now his sights are set on something truly revolutionary: Wind Power.

Pickens says that the US is “the Saudi Arabia of wind power,” and that we could supply 20% of our electrical energy by the wind in ten short years. Also, we can develop clean burning natural gas as a domestic transportation fuel instead of sending away 700 billion dollars a year to pay for foreign oil.

By Picken’s calculations, we reached global peak oil in 2005. From here on, exploration and supply of conventional fossil fuels will lose pace with energy demand. The only way to keep up is to change-and fast! Check out the Pickens Plan for energy independence at their website, and watch the video below.

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.

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.

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 campaigns all day and usually get in touch with a Communications Director or campaign manager  within two tries. Then I email them this form to calculate their carbon footprint.  It is really easy to be a carbon neutral campaign.

Our program is the only one in the country for politicians to offset their greenhouse gas with reputable carbon offsets from US based projects. We are using the same high quality offsets as Speaker Pelosi’s Green the Capitol Initiative, and the worksheet for calculating a campaign carbon footprint is simple to use.

The bottom line: there is no excuse in this election for political campaigns to not be carbon neutral. More to come…

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…