Recently in Go-Media. The U.S position on Climate Change is overshadowing all other discussions in the lead up to Copenhagen, even at a conference I recently attended in Melbourne Australia - the 5^th Australia-New Zealand Climate Change & Business Conference, August 24-26^th. The Australian position requires global consensus for a greenhouse gas emissions target by 25% with a successful Post 2012 Agreement in place, but only 5% if that is not concluded. It all depends on what the U.S does in Copenhagen according to their minister Penny Wong

The European Union is the only group that will continue with strong commitments independent of the U.S position with a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases on 1990 levels by 2020 and 30% if a global agreement is concluded.

Katy Cecys of the Pew Centre on Climate Change,  stated that, the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets a target to reduce GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below by 2050. Offsets (project-based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons equivalent per year, or 30% of U.S. emissions reductions, split evenly between domestic and international offsets.

Ms Cecys said, “President Obama has the right to expand the international offsets flowing into the U.S. to 1.5 billion tons of offsets”. This means that due to the U.S position international offsets will continue under the Post 2012 agreement - it may not be called CDM in the new agreement.

In fact expanded offset provisions are anticipated as the U.S has also included provisions for an additional 5% set aside to import REDD credits (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). There is also 1% set aside for adaptation and 1% set aside for Technology transfer.

Ms Cecys, raised two other issues, which will help the U.S Senate pass the Bill - the first is finding a strong advocate like Waxman in the House to drive the Bill through the Senate - the proposed champions are Senator Barbara Boxer or Senator John Kerry with a moderate republican yet to be nominated. The second point is that if the Senate fails to pass the legislation the U.S EPA can legislate as greenhouse gases have now been nominated as noxious substances, such that some fear the U.S EPA may rule even more strongly than the Senate. So there is a view the Senate will pass the Bill either before or after Copenhagen.

The Pew Centre assessment is that a fully ratified Post 2012 agreement is unlikely, rather an interim agreement with a post 2012 architecture in place including a range of developed world targets and indications of advanced developing levels of support, which will be developed in follow up meetings similar to the Marrakesh accords that followed the Kyoto Protocol.

Developing nations should take responsibility

The U.S and EU has stated all economies should take on commitments as China is set to be the largest greenhouse gas producer in the future.

The developing world response

Alex Wyatt from Climate Bridge, articulated the fundamental approach of the developing world. China and India believe that historical emissions are the way to allocate the burden of responsibility, as they did not create the problem. ” It is a human rights issue - they have the right to lift their people out of poverty,” said Wyatt. He indicated that the developed nations are asking countries to take on responsibilities for greenhouse gas reduction, in nations where 40% of the population live on less than $1.25 per day and 50% on less than $2 per day.

China is not doing nothing, it is quite proactive and recognises the problem of growing greenhouse emissions. It has adopted renewable energy targets of 20% by 2020 and of the $586 billion stimulus package to be spent in the next 2 years, $260 billion is going to the Clean Tech sector according to Wyatt.

A compromise position is one whereby, ‘emerging’ developing countries would ‘graduate’ in terms of their greenhouse gas reduction responsibility.  Some least developed countries (LDCs) like Bangladesh concur.  LDCs like Africa should not be treated on the same basis as the emerging nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC nations). They should be assessed in the post-2012 period on the basis of their level of economic development; capacity to act; contribution to global GHG emissions per capita; GDP per capita; current OECD membership and mitigation potential.

Advanced developing countries measures could include national emission caps; intensity targets; energy efficiency commitments; and sectoral intensity targets. India, Saudi Arabia, and China are firmly against reclassification, rejecting the idea of differentiation based on contemporary levels of development, rather seeing differentiation based on historic responsibility.

National caps are unlikely, but the compromise could be that sector caps will be applied to the BRIC nations. If this occurred the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) would remain outside the capped sectors in the BRIC nations but remain intact in the least developed countries like Africa, Bangladesh and the Pacific. ACES provisions allow for the purchase of international offsets (CDM) from developing countries in order for the U.S to reach its targets at the least cost of abatement.

A new program called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) will assist the advanced developing countries move into the Post 2012 Agreement as well as adaptation measures, technology transfer, and finance. A REDD mechanism means developed countries pay developing countries to reduce deforestation, as de-forestation in the tropics represents about 50% of forest-related greenhouse gas emissions.  Brazil and Indonesia will be major beneficiaries of REDD credits. Brazil has also developed a large-scale hydro and bio-fuels industry such that sector caps are not taboo. It is moving towards the developed world position as a result.

The need for continued improvement in the offset market

The Conference also dealt with an evaluation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and a number of speakers like Michael Wiener of Perennia and Martijn Wilder of Baker and McKenzie  in Sydney recommended changes to the management of the CDM and advice for creating new mechanisms like NAMAs and REDD going forward under Copenhagen.

Martijn indicated that there had been a lot of criticism of the CDM but reminded everyone that it is the only instrument that drives private sector development and is the global carbon currency. The CDM rulebook has established the global benchmark for offset projects and has become the de-facto standard for all offset projects in the compliance and voluntary markets. The criticism is that the system is too complex with rules from the United Nations CDM Executive Board and in some cases additional host country rules as in China. Michael Wiener noted the lack of sustainability outcomes also. Complaints about the length of time the process takes from project origination to registration through validation and verification, including host country approvals were made by Mina Guli of Peony Capital, who finances CDM projects in China. “Two hundred days for a completeness check is too long - and that is just one part of the chain of getting a project through and a certified emsission reduction (CER) sold into the market’ she said. Additionally, in the first phase China dominated the CDM market with industrial gas projects such as HFC 23 and N20. On the plus side there are 1700 carbon project entrepreneurs in India.

The criticism of CDM by Wiener and Wilder can be summarised as too few countries participated; not a broad enough range of project types were represented; a backlog of projects to be assessed in the CDM pipe-line; a lack of auditors and consistency of decision-making; lack of sustainability outcomes and Post 2012 uncertainty.

Michael Wiener stated that all these criticisms are process issues that need to be solved as the Post 2012 agreement will be relying heavily on the international revised CDM and REDD offset market to reach global greenhouse gas reduction targets. As a founder of Carbonflow Corp, I think technology can assist these markets evolve and adapt, become more reliable faster and efficient, more transparent and user-friendly.

Recently published in Go Media

Copy from my Column from Sustainable Industries July 2009

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, known as the Waxman-Markey bill, is “a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact,”according to President Barack Obama. Republican critics are attacking Democrats as pro-business and anti-consumer and small business, which is ironic as the GOP is the “The Party of ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) and Peabody coal. “Using this tactic, the GOP wants to hold the line against the climate change bill, even though Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:NJN) and Shell Corp., along with other businesses and environmental organizations, are backing the bill. “I find it extremely amusing that suddenly the Democrats are being attacked for being too friendly to business creation,” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has said. The GOP argues that the Waxman-Markey bill would create higher energy costs for small business and consumers.

The real issue is the bill does not go far enough. It needs to create an “energy-efficiency and renewable energy set aside”-or green building carbon offset program-which rises above the regulatory approaches to energy efficiency. The Waxman-Markey bill provides for an economy-wide cap-and-trade program. The cap reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below by 2050. Offsets (project-based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent per year, or 30% of U.S. emission reductions, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets do not include offsets from green buildings.

However, federal regulators are closely watching California, which is holding public hearings about AB32 implementation [see "California gives legs to AB32, Sustainable Industries, December 2007]. Members of the San Francisco Carbon Collaborative, including Carbonflow, have made significant progress with the regulators on getting an “energy efficiency set aside” into the discussion for possible inclusion in AB 32. This is an important first step, as California is known as a global leader in energy related legislation.

Simultaneously, at the recent CarbonExpo in Barcelona, many expressed interest in a Global International Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy set asides. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, energy efficiency would be achieved through a renewable electricity standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting, appliances, as well as vehicles and stationery sources and fuels.

These are all good initiatives. But according to Anne-Marie Warris, author of the Voluntary Carbon Standard, “the problem is that it relies on energy efficiency measures to be applied as the natural turnover of building stock takes place,which is estimated to take anything from 500 to a 1,000 years….which is time we simply do not have to prevent climate change,” Warris says.

Indirect sources of emissions

The Waxman-Markey bill relies on capping direct sources of emissions such as power plants and other smokestack industries. The bill’s definition of domestic offsets includes agriculture,landfill, waste-to-energy projects and biomass. But, it does not include green building offsets. The conventional wisdom is that cap-and trade should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. The bill follows the reliance on reductions from direct sources and forecloses on the possibility to achieve reductions from indirect sources, such as buildings that consume electricity despite their cost effectiveness.

“As a result, a valuable incentive for voluntary GHG reductions is lost, the low-hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency in buildings goes unpicked, and industrial sources are required to shoulder a greater share of required GHG reductions, all of which increase the societal cost for addressing climate change and makes it less politically feasible to accomplish,” says Donald Simon, an attorney for Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean.

Huge potential with existing buildings

Existing regulation leading to emissions reductions through “green” construction techniques usually comes in the form of building codes that reach only new construction and substantial renovations. Yet the majority of GHG in the built environment come from existing buildings. Current government incentives “are helpful but inadequate because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years,” Simon says. Domestic green building offsets would allow regulated industries to choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing offsets from others who are able to reduce theirs at lower cost.

This would reduce the overall cost of climate change regulation for consumers because the market would exploit the lowest cost GHG reductions. Green building carbon credits would provide a large funding source that partially finances energy efficiency improvements. Poorer communities would benefit, as credits would fund energy efficient and renewable energy upgrades to existing building stock at a more accelerated rate than building codes currently create.

Making energy upgrades affordable

Moderate House Democrats and Republicans say that under a cap-and-trade program, ordinary people would incur higher energy costs over time because most have not upgraded their homes and small  businesses with energy-efficient technologies.

However, by allowing green building offsets into the federal cap-and-trade system, subsidies to poorer communities for increased energy costs would not be necessary. Their buildings would be retrofitted by the private sector using the dollars from green building offsets. Ultimately, these people would consume up to 50 percent less energy, with no net energy cost increase. Green building offsets would allow construction companies, project developers, engineers and architects to initiate energy efficiency and renewable energy building projects. And, revenue from the sale of the credits would fund projects and create new “green” jobs. Without this small inclusion to the Waxman-Markey bill, the Democrats may miss a chance to pass sweeping climate change legislation in 2009.

I have been away and attended a conference Carbon Expo, the Global Carbon Market, Fair and Conference, May 27th-29th 2009 in Barcelona, the most important conference in the Carbon Calendar and under new market initiatives in the Voluntary and Regulatory market there is now a “Cities & Carbon Finance Stream Workshop”. This shows the force of Cities gearing up to participate in the Post 2012 Climate Change Agreement.  This is unusual as Nation States participate in International Treaties not city states. Climate Change is impacting on global governance issues as all levels of government are involved in Climate Change emissions, reductions, impacts and mitigation. Even a few years ago the role of Cities and local government at international meetings was questioned. Mayor’s of the world are responding spontaneously such that City states are now involved with the lead up meetings like Carbon Expo to Copenhagen for the Post 2012 Agreement. For example in the U.S, I have recently heard that Governor Schwarzenegger of California state may well be present along with Global Presidents and Prime Ministers in Copenhagen.    Eventually organizations on behalf of cities will have to be represented at these Global meetings, as the numbers and levels of government simply become unwieldy.

According to the Carbon Expo program, there is “increased awareness and growing commitment of city decision makers to city climate strategies and implementation of GHG mitigation in policies and measures in both developed and developing country cities. However, currently there is limited access to information, knowledge on technologies and innovative financial solutions are some of the barriers preventing local leaders, entrepreneurs and business groups from seizing an overabundance of low carbon win-win options in urban centers. Hence the Cities stream aimed to facilitate and promote dialogue, knowledge sharing, networking and business communication within relevant stakeholder groups to be a part of an essential measure to foster a transition to low-carbon city development. The streams covered:
- Beyond Carbon Trading - Policies & Measures at the local level for financing low carbon development in cities
- Carbon finance in cities post-2012- Scaling up GHG reductions and enhance urban development co-benefits
- CDM/JI in Cities - What has worked and what has not
- Creating Urban Carbon Assets: From Concepts to action
- Leveraging Greater Energy Efficiency in Buildings with Carbon Finance - How can we make it happen?
- The Role of Carbon Finance in the transport sector in urban areas

U.S Cities are moving fast to catch up with European initiatives and are closer to taking over - they are well  organized and spear-heading major initiatives around GHG reduction at the city level. The San Francisco Carbon Collaborative is part of a broader groundswell of spontaneous activity by the World’s Mayors.The City of San Francisco Urban EcoMap, an Internet-based tool that enables cities around the world to provide smarter climate change information for their citizens. Urban EcoMap provides information on carbon emissions from transportation, energy and waste among neighborhoods, organized by ZIP/ Post codes.

On PBS March 23rd 2009, it was announced that the U.S Conference of Mayor’s established 4 years ago by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels reached the 900-mayor milestone. The 900 mayors represent 80 million Americans, and they illustrate the increasingly prominent role that cities and towns are playing in combating climate change.

According to Seattle Mayor, Greg Nickels, “cities cover less than one percent of the earth’s surface, but hold half its population and produce about 80 percent of greenhouse gasses. And cities will have to deal with the effects of climate change, from sea level rise in coastal cities to heat waves, strong storms and other extreme weather”.

Seattle has  aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2024 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The plan includes transportation goals — such as building a light rail system, improving bicycling infrastructure and using more “clean vehicles” in the city’s fleet — and improvements in building energy efficiency.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn on April 26th 2009 announced the world’s most comprehensive package of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing government, commercial, and residential buildings. According to the PlaNYC inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, almost 80 percent of New York City’s carbon footprint comes from buildings’ energy use.

A six-point plan, when enacted as part of PlanNYC, will dramatically reduce the City’s energy usage and save consumers money, while simultaneously creating thousands of well-paying jobs and significantly reducing New York City’s carbon footprint. The six-point plan consists of four pieces of new legislation and two PlaNYC programs that will achieve carbon reductions, train workers for the estimated 19,000 construction jobs that will be created, and help finance energy-saving improvements using $16 million available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The plan will also result in cleaner air, since emissions from boilers, furnaces, and local power plants will also be reduced.

“Today we’re introducing the greener, greater buildings plan, a far-reaching package of new local laws that will dramatically improve New York’s energy efficiency and reduce energy costs by some three-quarters of a billion dollars a year,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “This will significantly improve our economic competitiveness, put thousands of New Yorkers to work in green jobs, and do more to shrink our own direct impact on global warming than any other actions imaginable.”

According to the PlaNYC inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, almost 80 percent of New York City’s carbon footprint comes from buildings’ energy use. Once implemented, the legislation announced today will reduce citywide emissions by 5 percent….

The reductions will be achieved through the six point green buildings plan unveiled today:
* Legislation that creates a New York City Energy Code that existing buildings will have to meet whenever they make renovations;
* Legislation that requires buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to conduct an energy audit once every ten years and make any improvements that pay for themselves within five years;
* Legislation that requires commercial buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to upgrade their lighting to more energy-efficient systems that pay for themselves through energy savings;
* Legislation that requires buildings of 50,000 square feet or more to make an annual benchmark analysis of energy consumption so building owners can better understand what steps they can take to increase efficiency;
* A jobs program that will work with the real estate and construction industries to train the workforce that will fill the estimated 19,000 construction jobs the legislation will create; and
* An innovative financing program that uses Federal stimulus money to provide loans for property owners to pay the upfront costs for the efficiency upgrades that eventually pay for themselves.

Carbonflow is the first web-based multi-party carbon record system, will participate at Carbon Expo in Barcelona. Designed from the ground up to manage carbon projects, including CDM/JI and the voluntary market, Carbonflow works in rapidly changing multi-party project environments.

Carbonflow drastically lowers the cost and time it takes to create carbon credits. It improves the velocity and transparency of this growing market, while enabling the expansion of the carbon credit supply.

This announcement by Steven. T.Dennis, seems to indicate that, “Waxman has agreed to give utilities free initial allocations on nearly all of their greenhouse gas emissions. Boucher had sought to give utilities the credits to avoid rate hikes for consumers”. They have still not addressed the issue in the long-term of how to not incur rate-hikes for consumers, see my previous blog. The other change from the Draft bill seems to be a reduced interim target to 17% down from 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions out to 2020. It is a good start though and hopefully the Bill will be passed today.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have reached a deal on the most contentious aspects of cap-and-trade legislation for carbon emissions and plan to unveil the bill on Thursday, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said Tuesday night.

“We have resolved a good number of the issues,” Waxman said after a meeting with committee Democrats, adding that the bill remains on track to clear his panel next week. Opening statements are planned for Thursday with a marathon markup beginning on Monday.

“I am optimistic. I believe we will have the votes to pass the bill [next week],” Waxman said.

Waxman had to compromise with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) on one of his key goals -the overall level of carbon reductions by 2020. Waxman had wanted a 20 percent cut; Boucher has worried such a steep cut would outpace the development of new technologies like carbon capture from coal-fired power plants. They settled on a 17 percent cut instead.

Waxman also agreed to give utilities free initial allocations on nearly all of their emissions. Boucher had sought to give utilities the credits to avoid rate hikes for consumers.

The Energy Committee chairman added that details have not yet been worked out on all of the allocations, including those for refineries, but said he expected that they would be reached quickly.

A smiling Boucher also acknowledged that some details still need to be completed. “It’s still a work in progress,” he said.

Members also reached a deal on renewable electricity requirements. Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the legislation would require that 15 percent of electricity be renewable by 2020, although up to 8 percent could come from efficiency measures.

The agreement also includes additional help for automakers on top of the “cash for clunkers” provision announced last week at the request of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).

The Waxman and Markey Climate Change bill has to be finalized by 25^th of May on Memorial day 2009. The House is considering climate change legislation authored by a key subcommittee chairman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). President Obama has said this is, “a rare opportunity to rise above parochial concerns to enact a bill with a profound national impact”.

The Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft provides for an economy wide cap & trade program: The cap reduces greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Offsets, (project based reductions) are limited to 2,000 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) per year or 30% per cent of U.S emission reduction, split evenly between domestic and international offsets. Domestic offsets does not include Green Buildings offsets. There are provision for emissions reductions from reduced deforestation through allowance set-asides.

Waxman does not yet have support from House Republicans or moderate Democrats like Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) who are opposing the bill. Opposition concerns whether to give away or auction the permits to manufacturers, utilities, and other industrial sectors in a U.S Cap and Trade Emissions Trading scheme. The U.S is coming up against the same opposition from industry and parochial interests that the Europeans came up against, when they decided to give away the majority of permits in the early years of the European Emissions Trading scheme (EU-ETS). The U.S was originally highly critical of the Europeans for going down this path.   Al Gore has gone on the front foot calling for unity from the democrats on Climate Change against the resistance of some democrats wanting to protect local industry. Similar to the results of the EU-ETS, we found with the Carbonflow carbon game emission reductions were achieved even with giving away the permits in the first period. So, whatever the House decides on auctioning versus giving away permits that should not block the Draft bill’s passage through the house.

Some believe that Speaker Pelosi will make the House vote on a version of the Markey bill with 254 House Democrats, but important House Democrats like Mr. Dingell may make a similar case as House Republicans, that the bill should be opposed because of the higher energy costs for consumers.

The approach taken by the Waxman-Markey bill does not alleviate the problem whereby household consumers will pay higher energy costs because the regulatory approach to energy efficiency and renewable energy is insufficient. Under the bill energy efficiency and renewable energy is proposed to be achieved through regulation by establishing a renewable electricity standard, a low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency programs and standards for buildings, lighting, appliances and additionally further standards for vehicles, stationery sources and fuels.

According to  Donald Simon, an attorney for Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, BOMA International, The Real Estate Roundtable, U.S. Green Building Council and the California Business Properties Association, regulation does not achieve the result intended as, “Building codes typically affect only new construction, because existing buildings are “grandfathered” and new code requirements apply only to substantial renovations, which is  hugely problematic. Existing buildings account for the vast majority of real estate sector GHG emissions. Government incentives are helpful but inadequate and unreliable because they do not achieve sufficient market penetration and rely on limited government funding that can disappear in lean budget years”.

Simon goes on to say that, “in the world of Climate Change regulation, there are two major classifications of GHG emission sources - direct and indirect. Direct sources release GHGs directly into the air, like power plants and other smoke stack industries. Indirect sources are activities that consume what the direct sources produce, like buildings that consume electricity produced by power plants. The conventional wisdom among regulators globally is that market-based programs, like cap and trade, should be restricted to direct industrial sources, because there are fewer of them and they are already heavily regulated. This generally forecloses the possibility for green building projects to generate carbon credits, despite their cost-effectiveness. As a result, a valuable incentive for voluntary GHG reductions is lost, the low-hanging fruit of increasing energy efficiency in buildings goes unpicked, and industrial (direct) sources are required to shoulder a greater share of required GHG reductions, all of which increase the societal cost for addressing Climate Change and make it less politically feasible to accomplish”.

Not only do, Cap and Trade Green Building carbon credits provide a much larger funding source that could partially finance energy efficiency improvements if buildings are allowed to participate, they also actually benefit poorer communities by upgrading the existing building stock with energy efficient and renewable energy technologies at a much more accelerated rate as the private sector is incentivised from the price of carbon to go out and do projects on a large scale, providing whole districts and building owners with clean technologies funded by the credits. Regulatory approaches just take too long to retrofit the existing building stock and leave people stranded with high energy bills.

House moderate Democrats and Republicans correctly say ordinary people will incur higher costs of energy over-time because most people will not have had their homes and small businesses upgraded with clean technologies and they know the subsidies to poorer communities for energy costs will be short-lived and once removed all Americans will be left with higher energy costs. A householder or small business faced with a doubling of energy costs from USD 100 - USD 200 a quarter would probably just pay as there is not enough incentive to go out and retrofit the house nor do they have the trades expertise to do it.

The better outcome is that Green Building Carbon Credits are allowed and business, construction companies, project developers, engineers, architects do energy efficiency and renewable energy building projects using the funds from the credits and create the Green jobs President Obama is talking about.

In short proposed subsidies to less well off Americans waste money that should be going into making all American homes energy efficient and creating green jobs.

Policy-makers can encourage voluntary reductions by structuring carbon markets in a way that allows parties to convert their GHG reductions into carbon credits that they can sell to regulated sources to offset their emissions. Under the current plan the U.S would be in the anomolous situation of accepting international carbon offsets from energy efficiency and renewable energy but not accepting it domestically. This makes no sense. Domestio Green building offsets would allow regulated industries an alternative way to comply with regulatory obligations by letting them choose between reducing their own emissions or purchasing Green Building offsets from others who were able to reduce theirs at lower cost. This reduces the overall cost of Climate Change regulation by letting the free market exploit lowest cost GHG reductions.

Green Building carbon credits would be more transparent as they would have to be independently validated and verified, and open to public scrutiny, whereas money going to government agencies for programs may well end up being used on things other than greenhouse gas reductions projects. Even the double-counting issue can be managed as companies like Carbonflow, multi-party software designers for the carbon industry can easily retire end use building credits back to the Cap.

I believe however, if the house was not to get too hung up over auctioning or giving away permits in the first phases and secondly, to introduce Green Building Carbon Credits, it could solve all the problems that beset the Draft Waxman-Markey bill before the House on Memorial Day.

At a recent conference called, “Navigating the American Carbon World Conference and Trade Fair” sponsored by Point Carbon and IETA, PG & E,  April 1-3 2009. San Diego, California, there was a consistent general tone to the presentations on the importance of doing something about Climate Change, how little time we have to do it in and how the global community including the developing world must come together for a Post 2012 Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen 2009. There was broad consensus from all speakers such as, Janet Pearce, Vice President, Markets and Business Strategy, Pew Center, Carl Pope, Executive Director Sierra Club, Nancy McFadden PG& E,  to firm targets for the next commitment period 2012-2017, followed by a series of rolling interim targets with a firm long term 2050 target for the U.S and the rest of the world.

It is expected that the U.S will join the Annex 1, first world Kyoto countries and take on an absolute Cap of greenhouse gas emission of 60-80% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, U.S presenters are very artful and one notices that U.S speakers never actually state that the U.S will ratify the Post 2012 Climate Change agreement without mentioning in the same breath, the need for a commitment to targets by the developing world.

Nancy Sutley, Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality, raised the question of engaging with the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations on sector targets for developing countries. IETA (The international Emissions Trading Association) also discussed giving BRIC nations sector caps, in other words targets on specific industry sectors, which would expand over time to include more sectors. An example of a sector cap, which was often cited was the cement sector in China. Sector Caps for developing countries seems to be the compromise solution to allow the U.S. Congress to agree to an international agreement and not to be seen to be letting U.S competitors off the hook. My concern is what happens if the developing world does not agree to any kind of cap on emissions including sector caps, where does that leave the U.S?

Today, The Obama administration is convening a meeting of 17 major nations April 27-28 in Washington to begin talks on international action to address climate change. The talks are a prelude to the December UN meeting in Copenhagen to create a new global treaty on Climate Chane. These talks confirm the U.S position, which is to insist on greenhouse gas caps on developing countries. The meeting underway in Washington includes nations responsible for 75 percent of the world’s carbon emissions and includes Western European countries, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and Mexico. Michael Froman, Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs, told journalists April 24 at the State Department’s Foreign Press Center, “We believe that it is critical that those 17 be able to make progress on the outstanding issues and reach political consensus if there is to be to a deal in Copenhagen”.

The issues under discussion in Washington this week were discussed at an IETA hosted side-event, “Making Markets Work for the Environment” at the Point Carbon Conference in San Diego earlier this month. IETA released a document on “Principles for a Post 2012 International Climate Change Agreement”, which captures the key debating points around the Post 2012 Climate Change Agreement under discussion in Washington.

IETA recommended that the parties agree to:

- Firm targets for the next commitment period 2012-2017 followed by a series of rolling interim targets with a firm long term 2050 target. (They did not specify the actual target).

- Longer commitment periods of 8 years not 5 to provide predicatability and certainty for business decisions.

- Support for differentiated targets for Annex 1 nations and new forms of commitment such as sectoral caps for BRIC nations. IETA stressed that criteria for differentiation needs to be clearly elaborated including ways in which non Annex 1, developing countries such as China and India can move to Annex 1 mid-period - a pathway for all nations to move to the higher standard of commitment.

- Develop long-term standardized global network of Inventories and Monitoring, Reporting and Verification systems (MRV). Indira Balkinson and Barbara TooleO’Neil of DNV raised the necessity for 3rd party independent validation at the Point Carbon conference. It is not practical diplomatically for the U.S EPA to audit overseas credits it is better to be done by independent validators.

IETA countered U.S criticism of Emissions Trading and the flexible mechanisms by stating the need to focus on the provision of a global carbon market that facilitates trading between private entities and Parties as a pillar of the next Climate Change Agreement.

IETA Supported:

- The existing Flexible Mechanisms: Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI), which has been the key to jump starting emission reduction activities as well as facilitating the flow of technology. (Currently, CDM allows for credits generated in a developing nation to be sold into a capped nation like the EU as a means to meet it’s cap). IETA supports continued access to CDM for developing countries without a sector cap or  for un-capped sectors, which would cover most developing countries and most sectors. CDM credits, (CERs) serve as a linkage between regional trading systems, a crucial function until a global direct linkage has occured.  Interestingly, Steven Messner of SAIC showed a slide that indicated without domestic or international CDM offsets, the price of carbon would double in the U.S., showing that purchasing CDM credits by the U.S. would reduce the cost of cutting carbon. U,S criticism of CDM is based on the notion that it involves transfer of U.S.D and technologies to developing countries like China, which is why the U.S argues for developing country caps.

- IETA indicated that a JI like mechanism, (trading between two capped nations) would become more important in a post 2012 international Climate Change Agreement as more countries would have caps.

-IETA also indicated that domestic offset projects will become a complement to Cap and Trade regimes, as they promote emission reduction within those Parties economies. There are numerous opportunities to enhance the use of domestic offsets alongside more traditional cap and trade mechanisms, particularly in areas such as forestry, agriculture, land-use change and waste. The discussion indicated that some European countries that did not allow domestic offsets in the 1st commitment period such as France and Germany were interested in domestic offsets to drive private sector activity, jobs and technology uptake.

- IETA supported the transferability of the existing carbon market projects in process through the CDM/JI to domestic offsets as new nations formally adopt emission limitations.

I found myself agreeing with the points made by IETA and suggest further reading of their material. In summary they are arguing for all existing and future market mechanisms, which have the explicit intention of attracting private sector investment to create a secure investment environment with clear rules for participation and crediting and to use the market to create the most effective way for the private sector to participate in the Post 2012 Climate Change Agreement.

The San Francisco Carbon Collaborative was coordinate by David Pascal, Clean Technology and Green Business advocate for the City of San Francisco. The meeting was hosted by law firm Morrison and Forester on the 18th and 19th of February 2009. David Pascal thanked everyone who participated for “their enthusiasm and willingness to explore the possibility of anchoring the US environmental markets here in San Francisco”.

David has said that the City of San Francisco has a number of advantages including, “our legacy as a financial and IT centre, our position as an environmental leader, and our economic linkages with China and the rest of the Pacific Rim”. This is a case of think global and act local. San Francisco can host the carbon market players throughout the whole chain of carbon credit creation to trade credits within California, the United States and the rest of the world. Others are thinking along these lines too like Bill Joy, partner at KP who is advocating that the skills of Silicon Valley be put at the disposal of Carbon Valley. Bill Joy was Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems.

Over 60 companies attended the afternoon and following morning including global carbon credit auditor - DNV, global carbon brokers - CantorCO2e, Evolution Markets, global carbon project developers - EcoSecurities, First Climate, California green building companies - Studley, California Green attorneys - Morrison and Foerster, Binghams, Gordon and Rees, U.S and California policy makers and registries - Center for Resource Solutions, UC Berkeley, CARB, Climate Registry, software providers - APX, Carbonflow, U.S. Carbon and Clean Tech investors Clean Pacific, Jane Capital, Vantage Point and Tech companies like Fluid Trade, Media - San Francisco Business Times, Climatebiz and Sustainable Industries. Additionally, local businessman Barry Hoffner of HFS is interested to set up a San Francisco Carbon Exchange.

This was the first meeting of the Carbon Collaborative with future meetings planned in March. David noted that, “The impact of the policy position of the U.S government and the California response to that took up much discussion” Furthermore he said that San Francisco must also develop a Consensus Opinion on AB32 the California Emissions Trading Scheme.

The most important discussion agenda item is the San Francisco City policy position and how it fits into the national U.S Cap and Trade, AB32 and finally to be truly global the international revised Kyoto Protocol to be undertaken in Copenhagen December 2009. The policy position will make or break the notion of San Francisco as an anchor for the carbon markets. This is the nexus between policy and innovation - it is just this juncture, which either leads to green business activity or not.  If for example a carbon tax was to be put forward it would not lead to the same outcome. A tax on carbon polluting industries does not lead to much change in behaviour - it is inelastic. Double your cost of electricity or petrol prices for your car - and you still do not go out and buy photovoltaic cells for your house or a new Toyota Prius, do you? You just pay the tax! Also a carbon tax is not in line with global positions on ways to combat Climate Change. See this blog on the Carbonflow Carbon Game, which showed that as long as you auction the carbon permits,(not grandfather them, meaning give away the permits, the criticism of the European Emissions Trading scheme),  Emissions Trading will lead to a move away from coal fired power stations.  Interestingly, the Bay Area emitters like PG & E did not attend. David indicated that, based on discussions with those parties prior to our meetings, they expressed interest, but appear to be taking a “wait and see” approach to our initial moves. Once a clearer picture of our coordinated activities begins to emerge, San Francisco city will re-approach them with more specific opportunities for engagement.

Also for future meetings, there was mention of reaching out to key SF-based organizations that represent carbon interests in China and India which were also not present. It appears, these organizations may be looking to the US to solidify their standards and practices before they would participate in any new, SF-based market initiative. The U.S position on the post Kyoto framework will have a great impact on Indian and Chinese policy. Will they accept a cap on their emissions or a sliding cap perhaps - a bit less than the industrialized world?

The City of San Francisco has secured a place to meet regularly and continue formulating policy responses and projects that the city can undertake.

• Policy and markets - 3/19 @ 8:30am
• Communications - 3/18 @ 8:30am
• On-going collaboration - 3/26 @ 5pm
• Capacity building - 3/25 @ 5pm
• Energy Efficiency - 3 / 30 @ 2pm

The working group on Energy Efficiency and Agricultural Offsets in the U.S Cap and Trade has been included at my request in order to maximize green business activity, create more green jobs, greater transparency and auditability. According to a study, Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S and Colorado by The American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, Colorado, and published on Climatebiz it found that with appropriate federal and state government policies, Renewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) could by 2030 generate over 37 million jobs per year in the U.S. The study goes onto report that the stronger the policy settings the stronger the job creation potential from RE and EE”. The inclusion of Rnewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) in the U.S Cap and Trade will unleash the private sector to create the green businesses of the future around transport, energy efficiency and agriculture.

The consequence of good policy will be all the myriad of activities people want to see including a diverse range of companies prospering in a Carbon Valley hub of entrepreneurs, investors, policy people, educationalist and technology companies, which would support a  Carbon Valley Carbon Exchange.

To assist this process a web portal communication center or clearing house will be established by the City of San Francisco with education material focusing on carbon capacity building and communications. The Web portal clearing house would include the following content: Early Carbon Action / Showcase projects / Best practices / ANSI standards /Carbon policy / FAQ’s / Sharing of baseline data  / Summit - case studies (national and international), conferences / Website - city sponsored, blog, education, events, SF version of Open Carbon World / Cluster Building - incubators, think tanks, networking events/ Calendar of local events, local emission reduction projects / Use BC3 as network platform / Capital introductions.

Renewable Energy seems to be one of the big winners in the U.S. Stimulus package. The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009, an economic stimulus package with tax and spending provisions totaling nearly $800 billion, was signed into law on February 17. The act contains a number of tax provisions that provide significant value to companies and individuals that are focused on producing renewable energy or reducing energy use through efficiency. By extending, modifying and enhancing several renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives, the stimulus package creates many opportunities for taxpayers to get paid for going green according to an article in Greener Buildings.

In Washington, The U.S. Interior Department said it has created a special task force to speed the development of renewable energy projects on federal lands. “More so than ever, with job losses continuing to mount, we need to steer the country onto a new energy path,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The government is on the right path from the point of view of creating employment. According to a study, Defining, Estimating and Forecasting the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Industries in the U.S and Colorado by The American Solar Energy Society, Boulder, Colorado, and published on Climatebiz it found that,

“U.S. RE and EE in 2007, generated $1,045 billion in sales and created over 9 million jobs – including $10.3 billion in sales and over 91,000 jobs in Colorado. The U.S. RE and EE revenues represent substantially more than the combined 2007 sales of the three largest U.S. corporations - WalMart, ExxonMobil, and GM ($905 billion) before the melt-down. RE and EE are growing faster than the U.S. average and contain some of the most rapidly growing industries in the world, such as wind, photo-voltaics, fuel cells, recycling/re-manufacturing, and bio-fuels. The study further noted the importance of policy settings to the industry and said that, with appropriate federal and state government policies, RE and EE could by 2030 generate over 37 million jobs per year in the U.S. – including over 600,000 jobs in Colorado. The study goes onto report that the stronger the policy settings the stronger the job creation potential from RE and EE”.

Mr Salazar has said that, “We will assign a high priority to identifying renewable energy zones and completing the permitting and appropriate environmental review of transmission rights-of-way applications that are necessary to deliver renewable energy generation to consumers. We have to connect the sun of the deserts and the wind of the plains with the places where people live.” Furthermore, “the task force will identify specific zones on public lands where the department can act rapidly to create large-scale production of solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy”.

I have a concern about this approach, which is that although creating large-scale renewable energy projects on government land, maybe more administratively easier, it may lead to local opposition to fields of solar collectors and wind farms. I think the application of this policy should be integrated into communities in a more subtle way.

I have suggested that rather than create renewable energy parks, the better concept is take an integrated approach and create entirely sustainable communities, which I described on this blog - “Convert the suburbs to Sustainable Communities and Bank the Credits”  - In this post I was also suggesting that energy efficiency, sustainable water and waste management be included in the mix of energy solutions such that whole communities could become entirely sustainable. Put another way it involves a move away from the monoculture approach to development and requires the adoption of strategies that mimic nature, based on bio-diversity.

On another blog on Multiple Crises, which concerns sustainable agriculture, I have drawn on the work of Dr Lietaer who takes up the notion of bio-diversity for the banking system. I am applying it to renewable energy systems and I believe that that the more diverse the renewable energy systems are the more resilient the community will be.

The conceptual breakthrough, which applies to all systems whether they be energy, financial or agricultural systems identified by Bernard Lietaer and his colleagues, “takes its evidence from balanced, structurally sound, and highly functioning eco-systems is that that all complex systems, including our energy, monetary and financial ones, become structurally unstable whenever efficiency is overemphasized at the expense of diversity, inter-connectivity and the crucial resilience they provide. The surprising systemic ‘a-ha’ insight is that sustainable vitality involves diversifying systems”.

The interior department is in a good position to do this as it manages one-fifth of the U.S. landmass and over 1.7 billion offshore acres. It needs to create diversity at the core of the sustainable communities it wishes to create and not make the same mistakes with the new renewable energy solutions that we made with the old ones.