Climate Change

Tea or coffee? It must be the former, because everyone I know is trying to read his tea leaves, especially when it comes to energy and environment policy.

Crystal balls and beverage dregs may be reliable methods of forecasting some things in our future, but when it comes to sustainability (and that's really what you mean when you say "energy/environment" or "climate" policy) look to California for a hint of where to focus your personal or corporate viewpoint in the coming months. Here are three big areas where the Golden State is leading and, I believe, the Obama Administration will gladly follow.

First, climate policy. On November 18, 2008, shortly after his election, then President-elect Obama delivered a speech to our Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles that left no doubt he will expand California's climate action plan - - and greenhouse gas reduction targets - - to the federal level. If you missed that important speech, visit www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk

New America's climate policy team was a key sponsor and organizer of the recent Governors' Global Climate Summit.  The summit brought together leaders from all over the world to begin to carve out a bold path to the next global climate change agreement in Copenhagen. From our point of view the summit hit a home run. Among the outcomes was an MOU to reduce emissions from deforestation, a Declaration, which committed the signers to develop cooperative actions on climate change throughout the world and most profound an announcement made by President-Elect Barack Obama to the summit attendees (and the world!).  A deep sigh of collective relief and, in some cases, tears fell as he pronounced "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process."

The summit however was not without criticism.

 By Sasha Rose Abelson, Consultant

On November 18 and 19, leaders from around the world gathered in Los Angeles to discuss the urgent issue of climate change.  For many of the participants, this was an opportunity to meet face to face for the first time. 

Day one of the summit was devoted to discussing different mechanisms that can help in the fight against global warming.   ‘Collaborting on GHG Reporting' emphasized the importance of an accurate system to to measure, monitor and report GHG emissions.  The panelists stressed that a transparent and credible reporting scheme is crucial to ensure a legitimate carbon market.  Later in the day, the sectoral approach to controlling GHG emissions was discussed.  This approach would use specific protocols to regulate different industrial sectors of the economy such as energy, transportation, cement etc. 

Day two of the summit consisted of a round table discussion between the world leaders during which they were able to explain the progress they had made in the fight against global warming as well as future goals.  The Governor of Kansas spoke of harnessing the wind power of her state, the Governor of Wisconsin spoke of other creative methods to create renewable energy (eg: using the byproduct of cheese production to create bio fuels - that's right - cheese.)

Once upon a time, there was a farm in a town called Plainville. The farmer produced natural chickens and turkeys, free from antibiotics and fed with good, plain vegetable feed, avoiding the various "additives" that consumers feared. The result was a factory, jobs, and products that everyone was proud of and, by the way, that made more money for the smart farmer than his competitors.

In fact, this enterprise became so successful that it soon outgrew Plainville. The smart farmer found a bigger farm in another state that was less costly to operate, in part because it featured an energy-efficient processing plant, used renewable energy, and included new ways of reducing waste (remember I said this farmer was very smart!). The new farm employed even more Americans in sustainable, high-paying jobs that wouldn't someday be outsourced.

But one dark cloud loomed over this great example of ingenuity, corporate social responsibility, and investing in the American dream.

The problem was that there was no longer a need for the facility in Plainville and therefore no longer a place for those workers to earn a living. Most entrepreneurs, even the smartest of them, would chalk that up to the price of progress and point to the net benefit of the enterprise, even though one community would now do better than another. But remember I said that this particular farmer - - and business owner - -  was very smart?

The unofficial color of the new millenium is beginning to evoke less images of Kermit the Frog, and more impressions of the lively discourse on environmental sustainability.

What with "green" on everyone's tongues, it was only a matter of time before the question of environmentally-friendly practices arose in the microfinance realm.  Green Microfinance, an organization devoted to harnessing the power of renewable energy to microfinance, is facilitating this week's microLINKS Speaker's Corner on Microfinance and Climate Change, which poses three questions to its participants:

• What is the impact of microenterprise and microfinance clients on the natural environment?  
• How can MFIs promote environmental sustainability while still meeting their "core mission" of reducing poverty?
• What is the role of donors and investors in ensuring environmental sustainability of an MFI and their clients?
  

These issues are important, but one can't help but wonder if there's a fourth question that also needs to be asked: What can microfinance do to help protect livelihoods threatened by climate change?

The day after Barack Obama was elected as our next President, Ethan Bronner wrote in the New York Times...

"There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - - call it America - -  where such a thing happens."

No matter who we supported in the election, I suspect that now each of us feels pride that our nation overcame its past and dared to reinvent its future. But in sending Mr. Obama to the White House, we did more than send "a black man of modest origin" - - we sent ourselves. Like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" we sent a man that has some part in him that resembles something good and constructive in each one of us.

So why not go beyond metaphor and actually send ourselves to Washington? Given the economic crisis and the imposing challenges ahead - - from climate change to a widening gulf between haves and have-nots - - now is the time to answer the question posed to a nation more than four decades ago. Knowing that he will find his own soaring and inspirational rhetoric, I doubt Mr. Obama will repeat John Kennedy's challenge, but it's hard not to hear those words like a song we can't get out of our heads - - "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

 As Washington and Wall Street dicker over a financial rescue plan, everyone is missing the real opportunity to fix the problem. Some see the variously proposed plans as bailouts of dumb borrowers and dumber lenders, while others view it as a chance to restore liquidity to the marketplace so we can all have access to credit again, whether it's for student loans or to finance the acquisition of industrial machinery.

But when the "Great Depression" struck America more than 70 years ago, we didn't just make more money available and hope people would borrow it to jump start the economy. President Roosevelt put us back to work, building bridges, highways, schools, and water projects. All of that infrastructure has served us well over the years, although at the time it must have looked like a lot of pork barrel spending designed to keep workers off of street corners and out of soup kitchens. What if we could do something like that again, but this time, make it a build-out that had fantastic economic, environmental, and social return on the invested capital?

In 2003, President Bush spoke about hydrogen cars in his State of the Union address. Shortly thereafter, the American Petroleum Institute (API) warned that building a hydrogen fueling infrastructure that could reach all Americans would cost $140 billion. Although I'm sure the API had no reason to use scare tactics and biased estimates (well, OK, maybe I'm not THAT sure), let's assume that's an accurate figure.

Last night, in the few minutes we weren’t talking about the financial crisis and the impending bailout, President Clinton waxed political on the potential for energy investment in the United States.  According to the President, the near-certain reality of approving legislation liberalizing off-shore drilling should be seen as a political opportunity for progressives interested in sustainable environment and combating climate change. But if we’re going to “give” drilling to the right, the left should negotiate hard for the environment, including:

Friday, September 12, 2008

AVIATION: U.S.-bound flight from New Zealand to showcase ways to save time and fuel. A major initiative to help cut airline flight times, burn less fuel, and reduce harmful carbon emissions is to be presented today by the FAA at the San Francisco International Airport. Los Angeles Times, California. 12 September 2008. [Registration Required]

CARBON MARKETS: World carbon standards to relax. World greenhouse gas markets probably will relax their notions of what constitutes a carbon credit to encourage more people to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases, the head of the Chicago Climate Exchange said. Reuters. 12 September 2008.

BANGLADESH: Bangladesh launches climate change action plan. Bangladesh, one of the countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, has launched a strategy to help the nation adapt to threats such as rising sea level, water-logged land and increased salinity. Nature. 12 September 2008.

That is the question of my blog this week.  Watching Rudy Giuliani speak at the Republican Nation Convention last Wednesday and listening to thousands of people chant, "Drill, baby, drill," I realized how confused our country is on this, well, confusing issue.  Somehow we arrived at a place where Republicans and Democrats are more divided than ever, and over issues like offshore drilling, which had once been off limits by both parties.  I believe people are misinformed, because if the facts were understood, the choice would be clear, no matter what your party affiliation.

The major misconception I've observed is that offshore drilling will lower high gas prices. The fact is that if these projects were to start today, it would take years before new refineries would affect the market...if ever.  Not to mention the amount of oil that could be produced is tiny in comparison with the amount that is produced worldwide.  And let's face it-these refineries really can't start producing today, because realistically it would take years to build a new refinery and.... large amounts of money.