This article appears in the June edition of Politics Magazine (formerly Campaigns & Elections)

With environmentalism firmly in the mainstream, you don’t have to press your body against a sappy tree or show your toes in a pair of Birkenstocks to prove you care about protecting the planet. Campaigns can win over millions of voters with a politically neutral environment-friendly message.

Going green will distinguish you from your opponent and connect the campaign’s message to voters with an effective call to action. If you do it correctly, it’s an inexpensive and easy way to build support among your constituents. Many of the steps you take to harmonize your race with the environment will also save money, earn media attention and improve your relationship with supporters. However, do it incorrectly and your efforts will seem phony and effectively backfire.

Follow these nine rules and recommendations for the best results.

Rule #1: Going green is for both parties
There are voters you need to reach with a positive environmental message regardless of your party affiliation. A Gallup poll released in March 2009 at the height of the economic crisis shows that between 70 and 80 percent of people are still worried about environmental issues despite the poor economy.

Rule #2: Narrow your focus
Because the environment can be a broad topic, you need to limit your message to issues that can be addressed within your district. Begin your green initiative by connecting it with the values and environmental concerns that affect local voters.

Want to talk about clean energy and water? If your district is urban, consider purchasing renewable energy for your office and touring a rooftop rain garden. If your district is rural, meet with farmers who are successfully conserving water and producing renewable energy. Wherever you are located, there is something green going on that you can be a part of.

Rule #3: Going green is interactive
Begin by asking your supporters what they do to help the environment, and then schedule a campaign event that focuses on their feedback. This could be a trip to the local wetland to learn about water quality, a carbon footprint survey sent to your email list or a roadside litter clean-up outing with volunteers from your campaign. Invite your supporters to join the campaign’s effort and put a report on your blog and in a press release. By demonstrating tangible leadership, you will establish your credibility with voters and environmental interest groups.

Rule #4: Tap into more green from your donors
Analyze the action steps you can take to go green and ask donors to sponsor this effort. Most campaign donors are flooded with the same fundraising appeals every election cycle, but by asking them to sponsor specific elements of your green initiative—such as effi cient yard sign distribution, reducing paper waste with microtargeting or cutting and balancing carbon pollution—you will give them a better reason to send dollars to your race.

Rule #5: Go public with your effort
Connect the campaign’s message with voters by sending them news updates about your efforts to go green. Include tips from the lessons you have learned with your fundraising letters and relevant direct mail. Monthly emails describing your progress to use less paper, decrease your carbon footprint or help improve a local stream or park will remind voters and the media that your campaign is determined to improve your district. To maintain your green credentials, always use either 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper or paper that is FSC-certified to be from sustainably managed stock.

Rule #6: Make every event green
Whether it is your kickoff breakfast or an evening reception, use local food and produce, avoid disposable plates and flatware unless it is biodegradable and keep servings small. You can go a step further and offset the carbon emissions for your guests if this fits with your message. Use a folded note card on each table to explain your green initiative.

Rule #7: Capture the environmental benefit (and the phone numbers)
If you have purchased an SMS short code, ask event attendees to send you the distance that they traveled so that the campaign can offset the green house gasses for them. It will cost about $.35 for each attendee to make their travel carbon neutral, and the cell phone numbers you capture will help keep your database updated.

Rule #8: Go green as early as possible
Start your environmental initiative early and update it consistently to help establish your authenticity with environmental issue voters. Kathy Dahlkemper defeated six-term incumbent Phil English in Pennsylvania’s 3rd Congressional District and began counting carbon emissions nine months before Election Day.

“I felt it was extremely important that my campaign be a carbon-neutral campaign because it clearly signifies the importance I place on the issue of becoming a cleaner, greener world,” she said. “I made this pledge early in the campaign and it resonated with voters. I believe they took this as a sign of my commitment.”

John McCain was fortunate to be able to establish his environmental message and climate change plan before “drill, baby, drill” became a campaign slogan. Any later and it would have been impossible for him to remind voters of his environmental message.

Rule #9: Follow through with your commitments
If you pledge to run a green campaign and then fail to implement and communicate the environmental improvements you have made, your campaign’s green initiative will seem phony. Avoid this mistake by putting a campaign staffer or volunteer in charge of your green initiative from start to finish. Establishing environmental credibility early in the race can preempt negative attacks, but this is irrelevant if your campaign goes green and then fades to brown.

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.

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:

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…

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.

Danny Westneat wrote a very positive article about Standard Carbon’s carbon offset business and the changing face of politics.  Brendan Woodward talked with the Times about business, politics, and religion.

We know that these are not the best subjects for polite company, but Check it out!

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.

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.