A regional cap-and-trade program launched in the northeastern U.S. three years ago has saved customers nearly $1.1 billion on electricity bills, helped create 16,000 jobs, and has retained more than $765 million in local economies by reducing the demand for fossil fuels, according to a new analysis.

While the future of the so-called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) remains in jeopardy — with New Jersey planning to drop out and other states also considering leaving — the study by the Boston-based Analysis Group finds that the project has had real benefits for the ten participating states.

The program requires major power plants to buy allowances at auction for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. From mid-2008 to September, plant owners have spent about $912 million to buy those allowances, generating funds that were used to improve energy efficiency, train workers, and undertake local renewable energy projects.

“We tracked the dollars spent, and RGGI generates greater economic growth in every one of the 10 states that participate in RGGI than would occur without a carbon price,” said Susan Tierney, one of the authors of the study, which will be published in The Electricity Journal. RGGI’s participants include the six New England states, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Cap & Trade – Obama’s Win Is the States’ Loss
• Paris Calls for Bids to Run Electric Car Hire Scheme
• Italy Solar Market To Shine Despite Incentive Cut
• US’ Only National Carbon Market Shutting Down at the End of 2010
• European Commission to Limit Trading of Carbon Credits

Australia has just enacted a carbon tax law that it will implement mid-2012. Is a carbon tax a better policy than a cap and trade policy? Better minds than mine disagree over the answer to that question and the primary reason for disagreement is that they are both susceptible to misuse when in place even though both have the ability to effect the right kind of change – which is to say, to reduce carbon emissions while mitigating the cost of doing so.

I’m going to sidestep that argument and I’m going to concentrate on the Power Sector to the exclusion of all others for this article. And now I will suggest that a “Carbon Price” has three goals to achieve in order to use to realize the ultimate objective of reducing the carbon emissions of the power sector of any given jurisdiction without jacking the price of energy and killing the economy:

1. Reduce Demand for Electricity
2. Re-dispatch (using different generators as first call)
3. Lowering the emission profile of new generation to be brought on-stream

And now I’m going to further suggest that the way to do any of this is to RECYCLE the revenue of a carbon price, not to remit them to a government treasury but to the goal of reducing emissions and mitigating the cost of doing so. How do you ensure that the revenue stream doesn’t end up in the government coffers? Put the revenue stream in the hands of a Trustee charged with the goal of reducing emissions and the cost of electricity where possible.

Will a Carbon Price achieve these three goals? What are the Problems?

Reducing Electricity Demand: The problem here is that the elasticity of price for electricity is actually even smaller than that of gasoline. And as everyone knows, as the price of gasoline goes up so does the grumbling; but not the reduction in use.

Re-dispatch: There is a base demand for electricity that is fulfilled by hydroelectric, nuclear and wind facilities because they have the lowest marginal cost to produce that electricity. They are also low carbon emitting sources. As demand runs above base, other generators are called on-stream such as Coal, Fuel Oil and/or Natural Gas, probably in that order. So how high does a carbon price need to be to turn off coal and run renewable energy generation? To make a broad statement, you could double the price of electricity to consumers and reduce emissions by about 5%.

From a consumers point of view, it is the clearing price of power that matters in a wholesale power market. Without a really high carbon price you can’t displace coal and a really high carbon price ain’t going to fly, politically. So, with, say, a $25 carbon price, if demand runs to a level that requires fossil fueled generators to run then that higher price of electricity is paid for every single MWhr of electricity produced at that time. The result is a windfall in gains for generators with a lower marginal cost of production and that windfall is paid for by consumers. (residential, commercial and industrial). Basically, the carbon price is passed on to consumers in a magnified form because even non-emitting generators get the higher clearing price.

New Generating Capacity: There is a better argument here. A Renewable Portfolio Standard, or a Feed-in Tariff or other proactive government policy allows a market operator to insert renewable generation at the bottom of the bid stack so that the (at this time) higher price of renewables is paid for renewable generation without influencing the clearing price of all other generators.

Now for the Good News

McKinsey & Company have a rather famous carbon abatement curve, as shown below. What it shows is that Energy Efficiency programs can reduce emissions at an incredibly inexpensive rate. Follow the curve, as the cost of abatement climbs steeply (from deeply negative cost) and then less so from left to right. You can find this curve here.

So what is the message here? If you take the carbon revenue stream and apply it to energy efficiency programs to ‘buy’ energy efficiencies the cost has been worked out by Robert Cowart of the Regulatory Assistance Program (RAP) to be about $0.03 per kWhr. Not bad, eh? Take revenue, buy efficiency and reduce demand. Reduce demand and reduce the amount of time that fossil fuel is used to generate electricity and thereby reduce carbon emissions. Better still, there are economies of scale in the purchase of energy efficiency programs.

Conclusions
Putting a price on carbon is a great idea, but it is incomplete. The bottom line is that utilizing energy efficiency programs, renewable portfolio standards, Feed-in-Tariffs and other policies greatly accelerate the reduction in GHG emissions. Putting the carbon revenue stream in the hands of a Trustee with a mandate to reduce GHG emissions ensures that the overarching ambition is achieved.

Need an example? The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states of the U.S.A. Read’em and weep.

Article by Miles McDonald.

References
Richard Cowart, Regulatory Assistance Project www.raponline.org

Per-Anders Enkvist et al, McKinsey & Company www.mckinsey.com
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, www.rggi.org

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electricity_policy#Central_planning_and_traditional_regulation_versus_competitive_markets

Christian Hewicker et al, Power Perspectives 2030, European Climate Foundation

Putting a Price on Carbon, Yale university http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2148

Carbon Tax Passes Senate, Jeremy Thompson, ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• U.S. Senate Climate Bill To Focus on CO2 Cap on Utilities
• California Climate Bill Should Give Cash to Consumers
• Americans Want Government to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• IEA: Climate Pledge Failure Would Boost Oil Prices

Parliament OKs plan to cut carbon to 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020

Under a controversial plan passed today in the Australian parliament, Australia’s 500 biggest greenhouse gas emitters will pay $23* for every ton of carbon they emit. The carbon pricing scheme, which will go into effect next July after the Senate’s likely nod in November, has been a political hot button for the Australian government and for prime minister Julia Gillard.

Even though packed with “sweeteners” that pull in political support but dampen its likely effect, the bill is considered by many as a huge step for Australia, the world’s largest exporter of coal and a top leader in greenhouse gas emissions per capita.

The Government estimates the carbon price will cost Australian households an additional $10 per week. But the bill passed today will also return more than half of the revenue raised to people via tax credits and direct payments, producing payments to individuals and households that should be more than enough to cover rising commodity and energy prices.

By making burning fossil fuels more expensive and thereby encouraging efficiency, efficient technologies and renewables, the bill, according to Labor estimates, will reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 159 million tons by 2020, cutting at least 5 percent from the country’s emissions by 2020. By directly investing millions of dollars in renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development, the Government hopes those cuts could run even deeper as the clean tech sector develops and matures — a possibility that pleased environmentalists, industrialists and labor unions alike.

The legislation will “unleash $14.8 billion of opportunity,” said Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national secretary Dave Oliver.

A narrow margin
The issue of taxing carbon certainly has been a divisive and contentious one among the public and Australian politicians, as was exemplified by today’s 74-72 narrow passage of the 18-bill package. The bills are expected to pass in the Australian Senate next month, but not without the help of independent senators and the Australian Greens.

The plan is a political gamble for Gillard, whose popularity in public opinion polls fell precipitously after introducing the carbon tax in July. An ambitious carbon tax was previously considered in Australia under the Labor-led government of Kevin Rudd. But it never went anywhere. The biggest difference between the Rudd plan and the Gillard plan is that Rudd never brought his plan up for a vote, a move that infuriated many party loyalists and ultimately, many believe, led to his stepping down.

In the new plan, the Gillard government recognized the need to balance ambition with political practicality, including in it exemptions for agriculture, tax credits and direct payments to Australian households, and financial support to the tune of $9 billion to the heavy-polluting steel and aluminum industries, as well as the country’s booming liquified natural gas industry.

Conservatives vow repeal
Federal Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has promised to ditch the tax if he wins office. “We can repeal the tax, we will repeal the tax, we must repeal the tax,” Abbott said after Wednesday’s final vote. “I am giving you the most definite commitment any politician can give that this tax will go,” Abbott promised, calling his words “a pledge in blood.”

After the first three years of the program—if Abbot and conservatives haven’t wrestled control of the government from Labor by then—the carbon tax will evolve into an emissions trading scheme: a policy mechanism once known in the U.S. as “cap and trade.”

*All $ figures are quoted in Australian dollars which are roughly equivalent to US dollars (AUS$1=US$0.99)

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010

In the summer of 2009, U.S. and Australian climate politics had a similar look and feel. The lower houses of legislature in each country had passed carbon trading schemes and were waiting on their respective senates to act. While the U.S. House’s wide-ranging cap-and-trade bill didn’t stand much of a chance in the Senate, many believed at the time that conservatives in the Australian Senate were on the verge of giving the go-ahead to an equally ambitious carbon plan. But after an internal leadership challenge in the opposition Liberal Party, conservatives reversed their official position on the climate plan, changing the course of climate legislation in Australia and putting it back on track with what was happening in Washington. After twice failing on votes in the Senate, in 2010, Prime Minister Rudd backed away from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which had been a core component of the Labor Party policy agenda. Many cite the move as leading to his demise as prime minister.

But a climate bill is again on the table in Australia after Prime Minister Julia Gillard Sunday outlined a plan to reduce the country’s annual carbon emissions by 159 million tons 2020. “We are moving from the days of words to deeds,” Gillard said, in a subtle reference to her former boss Kevin Rudd’s failure to stick with the carbon reduction scheme in 2010.

As prime ministers go in Australia, Gillard is not exactly popular. And bringing forward an ambitious and controversial bill is politically daring to say the least. But Gillard and her Labor Party colleagues learned a few lessons the last time they pushed a climate bill and have this time brought forward a plan that emphasizes simplicity, certainty and viability. And while the Obama administration has no intention of moving on a carbon cap any time soon, U.S. lawmakers who hope to revisit the climate issue one day might consider taking a page from their Australian colleagues’ playbooks

What the U.S. can learn from Australia: Lessons in simplicity, certainty and viability

The nearly fifteen hundred-page Waxman-Markey bill was anything but simple. Economists love the idea of simplicity in taxation because it can have a more direct impact on behavior. Want people to smoke less? Tax cigarettes. Want companies to emit less carbon? Tax carbon. But too many taxes and too confusing a code can muck up a well-intentioned bill. Although it is officially being referred to as a fixed-price carbon trading scheme, for the first three years of the plan, it will operate basically like a simple carbon tax. Under the plan, starting in 2012, facilities generating 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, provided they are not in the excluded agricultural or forestry sectors, will pay a fixed price of roughly $25 per ton of carbon emitted. Simple.

And what carbon taxes have been lauded for by liberals and libertarians alike is their financial certainty. Businesses like knowing how much taxes are going to be and what regulations they must follow so they can plan and budget for the future. Talk to any industry likely to be hit hard by climate legislation in the U.S., the one thing they all clamor for is certainty. The fixed price will rise 2.5 percent over the two following years before switching to a market-based pricing system in 2015. Companies will still be able to trade pollution permits in the first phase of the program, but the real trading and market opportunities won’t really take root until the government releases control of the carbon price. The fixed price at the outset of the Australian plan provides the kind of financial certainty that business interests are always asking for. Putting all your eggs into a marketbasket with a free-floating price from the outset can be dangerous. Just ask the Europeans, or Matt Taibbi.

Recognizing that they have no chance of passing a bill in Australia without helping the constituencies likely to be hit hardest by it, the Labor Party made several changes to the plan to boost its political viability. First of all, it made the plan smaller. Some 500 companies are estimated to fall under the Gillard carbon reduction plan, roughly half the number of companies that would have been covered by the even more ambitious Rudd plan.

And what did Labor do to deal with the powerful agricultural interests that certainly killed the bill last time in the Australian Senate? It exempted agriculture from the new plan. And to score some support from the general public, more than half of the revenue raised by the scheme will be returned to lower and middle income Australians via tax credits and direct payments as a buffer against rising cost of energy and other commodities. Another $9 billion in funds will also be directed to help heavy polluting steel and aluminum industries and help the country’s booming liquified natural gas industry adjust to the price increases. The danger, of course, is that sweetening the bill with so much viability can make it ineffective as policy. It can also backfire and turn off the very constituencies who supported the bill in the first place.

But good policy sometimes requires good politics.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Australia Unveils Plans to Tax Carbon Emissions by Next Summer
• Australians Want Renewable Energy
• Australia Brightens Up with New Solar Energy Plants
• Greener Aviation Industry Deemed Feasible for Australia and Region
• Australia Got a Boost of Alternative Energy in 2010

At a time when many are adopting the narrative that carbon markets are faltering, the European Union (EU) is aggressively pursuing the expansion of theirs to include aviation. One of only two mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade systems in the world, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) plans to fold in a new sector beginning in January 2012. Our research shows reducing GHG emissions from aviation is critical if we are to mitigate the impacts of global climate change. Low-carbon fuel technology and other technologies for airplanes are advancing at a rapid clip, but we need a climate policy – either a price on carbon or something else – to get over the hump.

Although there are many opportunities to reduce aviation’s impact on global climate change available now, experts expect GHG emissions from aviation to grow by up to 300 percent by 2050 if left unchecked. Action in the areas of advanced biofuels, airplane navigation and landing systems, and engine and airframe efficiency could help considerably. However, because of market failures, many new technologies may not succeed without public policy.

The point of market-oriented regulations like the EU ETS is to help push that new technology into the market without deciding technological winners. That appears to be exactly what’s happening with aviation in Europe. Low-carbon fuel technology along with more advanced engine and aircraft designs are beginning to enter the market just as new regulations are about to take effect. For example, European airlines including KLM and Lufthansa are beginning to fuel some of their planes with advanced biofuel-petroleum blends.

The EU’s view is that equally pricing the carbon emitted from airplanes flying into and out of European airports is fair and reasonable. And to that end, countries like the United States and China could look at this as one more additional cost to doing business in Europe and support the plan. They don’t. Their concerns include the legality of the program, the fairness of European-specific action, and the economic impact on the aviation industry.

The EU deserves credit for being a first-mover on this issue.

Both countries claim the move is illegal and an act of “extraterritorial jurisdiction” or ETJ. ETJ is an arcane legal term that essentially means a country is trying to exercise authority beyond its borders. U.S. airlines filed a lawsuit in 2009 with the European Court of Justice challenging the legality of the EU plan. The airlines are also concerned that their tight profit margins will be squeezed further, which could lead to even more fees. The International Air Transport Association estimated the program would increase the annual cost to Europe’s airline industry by 1 billion Euros while their profit for 2011 is expected to be less than half that. It’s unclear how much of the additional cost could be passed on to consumers.

Though the U.S. government is not a party in the case, it also believes the program violates international treaties. The U.S. government has officially come out against including U.S. airlines in the EU plan saying the intentions are good, but the method is wrong. Since aviation is a global industry and climate change is a worldwide problem, the US argued it’s sensible to want an international agreement instead of a patchwork solution that may be unfair. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has been working on such an agreement for many years.

Meanwhile, China is taking a retaliatory approach by putting the brakes on a major deal with Airbus, blaming the current “political environment.” Using a $4 billion deal as a bargaining chip is certainly an aggressive move by the Chinese. China also makes the claim that the EU program is illegal.

If the EU plan is legally upheld, the U.S. and China could meet its requirements if domestic measures are taken that result in equivalent GHG emission reductions. The purchase of fuel-efficient planes like Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner could reduce emissions and save airlines money in the long run. In addition, biofuels and other alternative fuels can act as a hedge against unstable oil prices, which have seen significant volatility in the last decade. In fact, seven U.S. airlines intend to start fueling some U.S.-based flights with biofuels. Finally, the U.S. military is leading the way in establishing a market for biofuels in aviation.

There are lots of reasons to want more low-carbon fuels and fuel-efficient technologies in the aviation marketplace. Along with hedging against oil price volatility and improving national security, mitigating global climate change is an important co-benefit of efforts to move off oil. Climate policy is a necessary step to help drive technological innovation and address these problems head on. The EU deserves credit for being a first-mover on this issue.

Article by Nick Nigro, a Solutions Fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. He is responsible for research, analysis, and communication of transportation technology and policy solutions for reducing greenhouse gases.

Article appearing courtesy Txchnologist.

Related posts:

• Solar-Powered Aircraft Flies At Night, Sets New Records      
• First Flight Takes Off on Kerosene from Natural Gas
• How to Bring a Plane Down: FAA Greens Landings
• The Air Force Finds That the Raptor can Fly a Little Greener
• Green Jet Fuel Powers Military Flight; Report Examines Camelina

A San Francisco judge ruled in March that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must stop implementations of regulations under the state’s 2006 climate change legislation (AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) because the state didn’t adequately consider alternatives to a cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions. In a ruling announced on March 21st, San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Ernest Goldsmith, rule that CARB must follow its own regulatory process and consider other plans to meet the state’s environmental law when implementing it cap-and-trade program.

Under cap and trade, emissions credits or allowances can be purchased by businesses that need credits, or sold by organizations based on the government’s requirement that those businesses’ emissions be offset. CARB’s regulation sets a statewide limit on emissions from sources responsible for the bulk of California’s greenhouse gas emissions and also sets a price that should drive long-term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The first phase of the program, scheduled to start in 2012, includes all major industrial sources including utilities. CARB’s version of cap and trade is considered by many as a working template for other states that may choose to adopt California’s regulation rather than a federal cap-and-trade program.

According to Goldsmith, CARB began its scoping plan during a January 2009 public workshop before it could finish the environmental review process and respond to public comments. The court’s decision also concluded that CARB “failed to adequately describe and analyze alternatives for informed decision-making and public review.”

The case was filed by the Association of Irritated Residents, along with several other groups including California Communities Against Toxics, and the non-profit organization, Communities for a Better Environment. These organizations are concerned that the CARB cap-and-trade program would increase air pollution in low-income communities near power plants and oil refineries.

CARB has said it will appeal the ruling.

Article by Julie Mitchell, appearing courtesy Celsias.

Related posts:

• Cap & Trade – Obama’s Win Is the States’ Loss
• Where is Cap & Trade Legislation Now?
• Clean Tech Event: Smart Grid Bilateral Trade and Investment Opportunities
• Four Democratic Senators Want Cap-and-Trade Bill to be Postponed
• California Gives Green Light to Carbon Trade

A carbon cap-and-trade program launched by 10 eastern states in 2008 has generated $780 million in revenues, with more than half of those earnings funding energy efficiency programs.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, says that $404 million generated by selling permits to utilities to emit greenhouse gases has been spent on efficiency programs, such as replacing boilers and insulating and weatherizing homes and businesses.

RGGI has generated substantial revenues even though prices for permits to emit CO2 have dropped to less than $2 a ton as emissions have declined during the recession, coal-fired power plants are being replaced by natural gas, and the prospect of a national carbon market has faded. Other RGGI permit revenues have been used to encourage the development of renewable energy, help the poor pay heating bills, and, in New York and New Jersey, to lower budget deficits.

After Republican victories in the Northeast in last November’s elections, some states, such as New Hampshire, are threatening to withdraw from RGGI, whose near-term goal is to cut CO2 emissions from the region’s power plants by 10 percent by 2018.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Alternative Energy Investments Will Soar to $200 Billion Worldwide in 2010
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• Energy Efficiency in Non-EU Countries
• Snap Analysis: Climate Talks Win Lifeline, But May Sink in 2012
• A Shining Star of Bipartisan Cleantech Support

Vancouver is a global destination for companies to develop and demonstrate emerging clean energy technologies, green transportation systems, energy efficiency solutions, water technologies and green building technology. With one of the largest cleantech businesses communities in North America, Vancouver is positioned as a leading centre of green economic development, investment, and job creation. Here are the top ten reasons why Vancouver, BC, Canada belongs in a list of the top cleantech regions of the world.

1) Spreading Cleantech philosophy. Vancouver is part of the large economic region Pacific Northwest and with its cultural and historical ties to Asia is in the unique position to successfully share business ideas and technologies and open the gate with Asia. Currently, many future leaders are being educated in Vancouver on some of the top cleantech activities that can be transposed onto the Asian scene.

2) Large Cleantech Funding. Vancouver is known for implementing some of the most progressive and effective policies worldwide, including an essential carbon tax, a ban on fossil fuels for electricity generation, and stricter regulations on vehicle and building emissions. To do this, Vancouver needs proper funding. The Innovative Clean Energy Fund (ICE) provides companies that look into renewable energy technologies that can be used for commercial application with $25 million annually. BioEnergy Strategy has provided $25 million to encourage research and developing in areas including wood-waste cogeneration, biofuel production, and wood pellet production. One last example, Green Infrastructure Fund has allotted $1 billion over a five year period to address five of the nine major cleantech sectors – water and wastewater, power generation, energy infrastructure, recycling and waste, and carbon transmission and storage company’s process efficiency and abatement.

3) Targeting greenhouse gas emissions. To manage emissions, Vancouver has set a goal to reach a 33% reduction of emission levels by 2020, and a 50% reduction by 2050. They have also started funding all new electricity generation projects that do not emit any harmful gas emissions, and work based of renewable energy. To goal is to eventually have renewable energy comprise at least 90% of the total electrical generation. Vancouver has currently set up a number of legislations to see this through, including new tailpipe emission standards. One way they are seeking to lower greenhouse gas emissions is through a cap and trade system that will include a number of financial penalties businesses will incur if they do not make positive steps in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide produced by their company.

4) Strong push on green buildings. By making the push toward green buildings, Vancouver hopes to raise overall efficiency and lower emissions. One neighborhood has taken sustainability to a whole new level by implementing LEED platinum, which results in overall energy reduction and high-performance. Examples of buildings going green include the New Convention Centre and Whistler Olympic Village.

5) Enthusiastic early adopters. Vancouver’s local population shows significant enthusiasm for clean technologies and is an excellent city to test out new cleantech products. Local leaders and decision makers from various communities have recognized the benefits of cleantech sectors and have showed as a result great interest in adopting cleantech ventures and pilot projects. Even just small items, such as creating more bike racks can do so much within the city.

6) Vancouver Greenest City Initiative. Vancouver’s Greenest City Initiative is promoting green sectors and technology. By 2020, Vancouver looks to create 20,000 green jobs and reduce the total amount of weight sent to landfills by at least 50%. Currently, Vancouver has the smallest carbon footprint of any major city in North America, and through this initiative, they aim to become the greenest city in the world by 2020.

7) Highest Ratio of Cleantech companies to GDP in Canada. Vancouver has long been an active and growing base of emerging cleantech companies, and is currently home to 25% of all cleantech companies in Canada. The cleantech industry has been a driving factor in the economic growth of not just Vancouver, but the province of British Columbia as a whole. Currently, British Columbia’s cleantech sector has enabled it to raise its GDP by 175%.

Pacific Carbon Trust. Started in 2008, Pacific Carbon Trust in Vancouver looks to create and implement various carbon offset products, to assist clients meet their goals of overall carbon reduction, and to foster and support the total growth of a low carbon economy throughout British Columbia. It was created to address the current climate change problems and what businesses can do to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the work of Pacific Carbon Trust, British Columbia implemented the world’s first revenue- neutral carbon tax on fossil fuels.

9) Strong academic support. The University of British Columbia Vancouver campus has created numerous initiatives to create a living lab that can be used to identify different climate change solutions. Another example for the strong push on the academia is the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium that were established for $94 .5 million to bring together universities, government and the private sector to identify climate change solutions.

10) Vancouver Greentech Exchange. In response to the rapid climate change, Vancouver is making the move not only toward cleantech, but also greentech, which are enterprises and technologies that produce a positive environmental impact. Through exchange, Vancouver Greentech looks to link greentech and cleantech companies with different market access programs to spread the word about greentech. This is done through important meetings between the two groups to share ideas and experiences that will spread green ideas that can be utilized.

Shawn Lesser is the president and founder of Atlanta-based Sustainable World Capital, which is focused on fund-raising for private equity cleantech/sustainable funds, as well as private cleantech companies and M&A. He is also a co- founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association, and can be reached at shawn.lesser@sworldcap.com

Florian Gabriel is Trade Commissioner for Switzerland based in Vancouver and Deputy Director of the Swiss Business Hub in Canada. He can be reached at florian.gabriel@eda.admin.ch.

Related posts:

• Canada Won’t Take a Backseat on EVs
• How Green Were the Vancouver Olympics? An Entrepreneur Reports
• Windy Vancouver Island Comes Online
• Canada Could Be Powered Entirely With Geothermal, Scientists Say
• Emissions from Tar Sands Will Dwarf Carbon Cuts in Canada

It’s a frustrating time for those of us who follow the international energy news and try to get the big picture on the slow migration to renewables. The biggest single problem, of course, is that we live on a planet with almost 200 sovereign countries each with autonomy to create of its own energy policy — or simply avoid the issue entirely, like we’ve done here in the US. And often, failure of a big country to act responsibly in this space is taken as an invitation for another country to behave irresponsibly as well.

Today we learned that Japan has postponed or even scrapped its national cap and trade plan, due to go into effect in 2013 because of intense lobbying by powerful business interests and because the measure has yet to make headway in other key countries.

Where is all this taking us? Are we to blame the Australia’s flood “of biblical proportions” (waters 30 feet above normal) on global climate change? I honestly don’t know. But as usual, I urge any of the new GOP administration in Washington who may be climate change deniers simply to adopt any of the other five or six good reasons to accelerate the pace at which we move away from fossil fuels.

Related posts:

• 10:10 Campaign Gains Momentum
• Congress: Start The Energy Revolution Without Me
• Oil, Waxman-Markey & Obama’s Advantage on Climate Change
• Listen Up Lawmakers: Americans Support Solar Power
• Sprint Declares Commitment as E-waste Impacts Grow

The results of political compromise — maybe by definition — are seldom satisfactory to anyone. But hasn’t this whole process recently gotten worse than ever before? The ultimate version of the healthcare reform that the Obama administration put through was the product of a hammer and tongs fight from the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the enormous money and power that they and their partners brought to the battle. Supported by a political machine that benefited from convincing voters that the whole idea of reform was tantamount to socialism, the bill that was ultimately passed is an utter disappointment — and may ultimately fall apart for any number of reasons, one of which is as basic as a successful constitutional challenge.

Closer to my home in the energy sector, I have to say that cap and trade legislation is a similar sort of disaster in the making. Anyone sincerely wanting to use the public sector to lead the way to a sustainable approach to energy has extremely clearcut tools at his disposal. How about the simplicity of a carbon tax? A feed-in tariff? What’s the matter with just pulling the subsidies on oil? If you really want clean energy, there are abundant and crystal clear ways to do it — instantly.

The solutions are all around us — and yet we’re headed in a direction that really couldn’t possibly work. Cap and trade will certainly make a few rich people even richer by creating yet another sandbox in which our *great* investment bankers can play. But the notion that the efficiencies of a free market will move in such a way to place a natural limit on carbon is so ridiculous that it could have only come from a process in which there is fundamentally no genuine concern for solving the problem at hand — one that is just anxiously looking for another opportunity to bilk a clueless electorate.

Think I’m exaggerating about the laughable ineffectiveness of our current political compromise? Ask yourself how it’s possible that a country of the stature of the United States with its (albeit waning) importance on the world stage still does not have an energy policy. It’s not that we have a bad one; our political environment is so contentious and corrupt that we don’t have one at all.

I hereby join the tens of millions of other garden-variety Americans who would give President Obama a piece of advice.

Sir, if you have any chance of re-election, look for counsel outside the Wall Streeters you have brought to your side. Knock off the compromises that result in the garbage legislation that will otherwise be your legacy. Do what you promised your supporters who brought you to office, and do what’s right by your own wits and the intent of the majority the the people who elected you. What do you have to lose?

Related posts:

• “Corporate Personhood” and Energy Policy
• Is ‘Political Capital’ Fungible?
• China Claims Edge over US in UN Climate Change Talks
• NASA’s Hansen on Waxman-Markey: “it’s just stupidity”
• Making Solar Energy Compromises