Cap and Trade in North America

That's right, the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) has announced plans (here, here, and here) to develop cap and trade policies to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While the EU has had a similar system in place since 2005 (see the EU Emission Trading Scheme), conservative administrations in Canada and the US have shown no interest in establishing meaningful environmental legislation.

Where federal governments have failed, state and city leaders have been able to enact the Kyoto Accord in their domains (e.g., US Mayors Climate Protection Initiative), and in February 2007 the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) was launched. Originally a collaboration between the governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington states, the Initiative now includes Utah, Montana, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba. Six US states, six Mexican states, and three Canadian provinces are listed with "observer" status. Hopefully the BC program will get up and running before the next (Democratic) president takes office to prove that these systems are not strictly a detriment to economic development (in case the EU's growth over the last three years wasn't enough). However, some of the limitations of the plan (here) suggest this may not be the case.

The Problem with Biofuels

This is not a new topic even for this blog, but this TIME article covering the environmentally devastating effects of the West's lust for biofuels is probably the highest profile nod I've seen to a problem that many have already warned the world about.

My hero Lester Brown was talking about this as early as 2003, so I think most of the finger pointing at "scientists" is bull, but commonplace in the knee-jerk media who often lump scientists together when anyone who has been involved in science knows that every single idea is contested and questioned. The real culprit is the weak pandering of politicians who know their constituencies are much more comfortable piping biofuels into their cars and than actually changing their ways or even facing the truth on climate change and their role in causing it.

My last gripe is with the title of the TIME article. "The Clean Energy Scam" suggests there are known problems with all clean energy technologies when in fact the article only looks at biofuels. So far, there is no reason for anyone to reconsider the benefits of wind and solar power. The article suggests biofuels are not the answer, so what do we do? It seems to me that the obvious solution is to develop renewable energy at a massive scale and use this power to run a new electric transport system (cars, buses, trains). I think politicians would be doing us all a service if they would be honest about the dangers we face and work to get the public behind this kind of revolution. Carrying on with the biofuels rhetoric accomplishes nothing.

Oil-Free Countries?

Photo borrowed from Galapagos Wind

TreeHugger reports that Ecuador is partnering with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) to celebrate the 500th anniversary of its discovery by becoming completely oil-free! Interestingly, the country was recently registered as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol. This means that countries seeking to offset their CO2 emissions to meet their Kyoto obligations will be able to invest in carbon reduction and fixation infrastructure in Ecuador to do so. I definitely need to look into the CDM listing more as this would be a great way for many small struggling countries to attract international investment.

Move Over, Oil, There’s Money in Texas Wind

Another promising article about the wind power movement in Texas, this time from the New York Times's great Energy Challenge series. As Lester Brown notes in Plan B 3.0, Texas is in the process of installing 23,000 MW new generating capacity from wind alone -- generating capacity equivalent to 23 coal-fired power plants. Also, interesting from the NYTimes is this nifty bar graph showing current wind power capabilities from the top US states...

The Price of Wheat

For those of you looking for the real costs of unsustainable consumption, look no further than your local grocery store where the demand for new fuel sources has increased the price of wheat-based products almost 3-fold in only one week! Don't understand how the two are linked? The folks at ABC.com do a pretty good job of putting things in plain enough terms...

"Just a few weeks ago, 50-pound bags of flour cost about $15. Today, they're $40."

"Blame it on the price of wheat. Demand for alternative energy has farmers planting less wheat and more corn, the key ingredient of ethanol. According to the USDA, since 1997, the amount of farmland dedicated to planting wheat has dropped from 70.4 million acres to 60.4 million, while corn acreage has risen from 79.5 million to 99.6 million."

Click here to read the rest of the ABC.com story.

This startling connection was actually described by the Earth Policy Institute's Lester Brown as early as 2003. The predicament is particularly well described in the newest edition of Brown's Plan B 3.0 (go here to read the entire Preface).

"From an agricultural vantage point, the world’s appetite for crop-based fuels is insatiable. The grain required to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. If the entire U.S. grain harvest were to be converted to ethanol, it would satisfy at most 18 percent of U.S. automotive fuel needs.

"Historically the food and energy economies were separate. But with so many ethanol distilleries now being built to convert grain into fuel, the two are merging. In this new situation the world price of grain is moving up toward its oil-equivalent value. If the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will simply move the commodity into the energy economy. If the price of oil jumps to $100 a barrel, the price of grain will follow it upward. If oil goes to $120, grain will follow. The price of grain is now keyed to the price of oil.

"The emerging competition between the owners of the world’s 860 million automobiles and the 2 billion poorest people is uncharted territory for humanity. Suddenly the world is facing a moral and political issue that has no precedent: Should we use grain to fuel cars or to feed people? The average income of the world’s automobile owners is roughly $30,000 a year; the 2 billion poorest people earn on average less than $3,000 a year. The market says, Let’s fuel the cars" (pp. 40-41).

It's all coming true, only sooner than anyone would have guessed -- well, almost anyone. I think it's time for us Barack supporters to tell Obama he needs to rethink his stance on biofuels.

UPDATE

Newsweek: Ethanol boom threatens West's water

Movement in Montana?

Pictured: St. Mary Lake in Glacier National Park

I remember being excited by the symbolism of 2004's election of Democrat Brian Schweitzer as Montana's first Democratic Governor since 1988, but haven't thought about him since. Recently I have been listening to Time.com's podcast series where they interview a big name from the Environment scene each week.

The podcast for January 17th was an interview with Mr. Schweitzer, who actually sounds like he has a good understanding of the issues facing us and the potential for growth over the next 20 years, although I read some less exciting things on Wikipedia about mining more coal (which he seems to refute in the Podcast).

"I believe this is the greatest imperative of our generation and maybe larger than that."

“The entire world has recognized this imperative and if American industry and the public sector recognize this and we create a tax code that incentivizes innovation in energy production and consumption we will create the greatest economic engine in the history of this country, selling these technologies all over the world.”

Anyway, the Times.com's article on Montana's growing green movement is worth a read, and there are some interesting news items and videos on the Governor's website as well.

Is Congress Finally Ready to Go Green?

As concern over global warming became more and more prominent in the U.S. over the past several years — in the media, in opinion polls, in business and in state governments — the one place where the issue seemed all but invisible was the one place that could really do something about it: Congress.

But that began to change in 2007, and nowhere more so than in the Senate's key committee on the environment and public works, which drafts much of the country's environmental legislation. Up until last January, the committee was chaired by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who memorably called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." When the Democrats took over Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, however, the chairperson's gavel was handed over to Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, and the floodgates opened.

Boxer began a series of open hearings on the science of global warming, giving airtime to the sort of experts — including former Vice President Al Gore — who had been suppressed under Inhofe. "As soon as the change took place, I realized that this was going to be one of my number one goals," says Boxer. "Elections have consequences, and this was one of the consequences."

Click here to read the rest of this Time.com article