Behind the Scenes in the Bush White House

Saturday's Washington Post carried an article by political reporter Peter Baker on President Bush's "evolving" thinking on the issue of climate change. The article's thrust is that, mirable dictu, our President now believes in global climate change and does not want "to be remembered as a roadblock" to solutions. I read the article over a steaming cup of coffee, admiring its journalistic balance, the way it makes you want to come away feeling good and hopeful and optimistic, since even the doubter-in-chief seems to be coming around.

Then I remembered the administration's energy and environmental policy during the past seven years. And I asked myself, in light of his new stance, where are the results? One watered-down energy bill does not a legacy make, let alone two terms of wasted time unmake.

The article revealed some things that were new to me. At one point, Bush's staff developed models for a market-based cap on greenhouse emissions. "'We gamed out what a hard cap-and-trade system would look like,' [an anonymous] former adviser said. 'Is there a way to do cap-and-trade that is economically responsible? Probably so.'" Clearly, though, they abandoned the idea. Baker also reports about a disagreement over who would head the US delegation to Bali-- James L. Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, or Undersecretary of State Paula J. Dobriansky-- and that Dobriansky, who was ultimately chosen, was frustrated with the position she had to hold, the position which earned her boos and hisses.

Overall, an interesting insider article, with good dope on the thinking in the White House and how the President wants to be seen. I'm always interested in what goes inside that man's head since it has non-trivial bearing on what goes in the world around us.

Well, that's it for 2007. Today's your last chance to make a donation to Carbonfund.org for this year. Remember, we're a 501(c)(3) organization and as such all donations are tax-deductible as allowed by law. Happy New Year!

Photo by Flickr user Lollyknit

Solar Power Progresses

Today brings two stories about new developments in the field of solar power. First, Nanosolar has announced that they are shipping "the world’s first printed thin-film solar cell in a commercial panel product," a product they claim can provide clean power at a cost of $0.99 per watt. At that price, solar power production can occur for less than the $2.10 per watt cost of coal. Popular Science calls this the "Innovation of the Year." Once Nanosolar's factories come online and mass production gets under way, hopefully the sky's the limit for (pratically) infinitely renewable, infinitely clean solar power.

The second item is this story from ENN, which reports on another new technology to improve solar cells. "Nano flakes" have the potential to convert up to 30% of solar energy into electricity, a much higher rate than is possible with current technology. All in all, some exciting news regarding what is probably the best very-long-term solution for the power needs of humanity.

British Insurance Magnate Travels to Africa, Witnesses Change Change Firsthand

The Guardian has an interesting article about a British insurance tycoon who left his posh digs in London to do development work in Kenya. Richard Harvey headed Aviva, the world's fifth largest insurance company, but he and his wife are taking a midlife "gap year" (UK slang for the transition period between major life stages) to aid the Masai people. As an insurance executive, Harvey is familiar with the early effects of climate change: Aviva is paying out dearly to victims of this year's floods in the UK. But the effects of climate change are even more devastating in Africa.

"Here in the UK [said Harvey] climate change has brought flooding which has been terrible and there are people who are still not back in their homes. But in Kenya or Malawi it has stopped a subsistence existence from being an existence at all. You are talking about starvation. Worse still, it has not been their carbon production that has done this, it is ours."

Harvey points out the possibilities for carbon offsets in something as basic as food preparation, which the Masai do over an open flame.

"That is incredibly inefficient. One thing you could do is build a brick cooker with a fire box in the bottom, which reduces the amount of wood you use by 50 per cent. Someone wanting a carbon offset can fund that sort of stove across a number of schools."

Yet another lesson about the enormous possibilities for carbon offsets.

For Peat's Sake

A new report from the UN Environment Programme says that the destruction of peatlands is responsible for 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide emission each year, the equivalent of 10% of worldwide fossil fuel emissions. Environmental News Network has an article that sums up the background:

Peatlands are wetland ecosystems that accumulate plant material over time to form layers of peat soil up to 20 meters thick. They are present in 180 countries, cover 3 percent of the world’s surface, and store an average of 10 times more carbon per hectare than other ecosystems. Peatlands are also home to a large share of the world’s freshwater resources and are critical in biodiversity conservation.

These lands are being cleared, drained, and burned at an alarming rate. If the destruction were halted, we'd see a huge reduction in global GHG output. Achim Steiner, the Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, points out the benefits of making peatland conservation a priority: "Just like a global phase out of old, energy guzzling light bulbs or a switch to hybrid cars, protecting and restoring peatlands is perhaps another key 'low hanging fruit' and among the most cost-effective options for climate change mitigation."

If you say peat, my first thought is of good Scotch-- I had no idea this land type was so important to carbon dioxide sequestration. Just goes to show that there's always something new to learn when it comes to stopping global climate change.

Happy Holidays From Carbonfund.org

This is my last post for a few days, and I just have a few things to say before I head out for the holiday weekend. One is to point to a new post by Andy Revkin, who writes the informative and insightful Dot Earth blog at the New York Times. Revkin throws out a challenge: What language can we use to inspire the mass action necessary to avert global climate change? Shouting louder doesn't work, for a variety of sociological reasons. The message needs to be accurate, concise, forceful, and engaging. As a writer, I'm fascinated by language and its unparalleled ability to influence, to frame issues, to encourage or squash thoughts and ideas. Revkin's challenge is one that will keep me thinking during my time off.

The second matter is just to point out that Carbonfund.org's Holiday Gift Cards are still available-- our e-certificates can be delivered electronically right up to the last second. Check them out for last minute, eco-friendly gifts. Cheers and best wishes for the holiday!

EPA Administrator Johnson Denies California Permit, Ignoring Advice of Experts

It's been a big week for governmental policy and the environment. First there was the new energy bill, which I wrote about yesterday. While I'm still not thrilled by it, there do exist compelling arguments for seeing it in a brighter light. As I've said before, policy does not exist in a vacuum, and once the political process of the U.S. Senate is taken into account, the modest gains start to look more like something to quietly applaud rather than fume about.

Today, though, brings unequivocally bad news. Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has denied, against the advice of his own agency's technical and legal experts, California's bid to decide its own greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post has a detailed article, complete with anonymous quotes from agency staffers. She reveals that EPA's "technical and legal staffs cautioned Johnson against blocking California's tailpipe standards, the sources said, and recommended that he either grant the waiver or authorize it for a three-year period before reassessing it." Their assessment of what would happen if he denied it and the agency was taken to court: "'EPA likely to lose suit.'"

California has, over the past few decades, positioned itself as a leader in reducing the GHG emissions of automobiles. None of its prior petitions to the EPA have ever been denied. Johnson is acting on behest of the forces of the status quo, who, having been forced to give a little ground under the energy bill's increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, are loathe to cede an inch more. And California's proposed standards are more than a metaphorical inch: they would assess vehicles' entire greenhouse gas emissions, not just the gasoline mileage numbers of CAFE. Greenhouse gas emissions profiles are a more comprehensive and rigorous method of measuring pollution, and, under the new standards, automobiles would reach 36 mpg by 2016, which is better mileage sooner than the new CAFE regulations call for, anyway.

So if you're excited to see your tax dollars paying for lawyers to defenda decision to prevent a state from regulating its own automobiles, a decision that promotes greater emissions of greenhouse gasses and will bring to court cases the government knows it's going to lose anyway, then give a cheer for EPA Administrator Johnson. The rest of us look forward to the day when the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency will allow his or her agency to live up to its name.

Weakened Energy Bill Now Law

President Bush signed a much-discussed energy bill into law yesterday. The New York Times's John M. Broder reports, "Its passage marks one of the largest single steps on energy that the nation has taken since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970’s." What an indictment of our energy policy! Three decades pass and a modest boost to fuel efficiency standards is this big of a deal?

The final two paragraphs are the most telling in the entire story:

Ms. Pelosi and other supporters of the bill expressed disappointment that it did not include a requirement that utilities produce a growing share of electric power from renewable sources and was stripped of a package of subsidies for wind, solar, geothermal and other alternative energy sources that would have been paid for by higher taxes on oil companies.

“It could have been stronger,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. “It’s really unfortunate that we didn’t have the renewable electricity standard or the incentives for wind and solar. But we’ll fight for those another day.”

The renewable energy component was a strength of the bill in its earlier versions, and would have given renewable energy providers and developers a welcomed boost. Renewable energy is one of the options for your donation when you offset with Carbonfund.org, but carbon offsets, while growing quickly, are still a small and emerging market. Our national energy policy should also be encouraging renewable energy, and a renewable electricity standard would have created incentives to speed the technological advances and infrastructure development that will make renewable energy cheaper than non-renewable.

With oil reserves running out and global demand spiking, it's only a matter of time until that line is crossed anyway, but anything that can hasten the transition has the potential to prevent billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from ever reaching the atmosphere. Unfortunately, thanks to a watered-down energy bill, we'll have to wait a little longer-- but the luxury of three decades to fritter away is one we no longer have.

San Francisco Adopts Offsets

Reuters is running a very interesting story about San Francisco's plans to offset city activities. I'm already a big fan of individual and business offsetting, so it's amazing to see a city of San Francisco's renown starting on the path to clean and sustainable living. (Of course, when it's Dallas or Houston offsetting, we'll know we've really made progress.)

I do have a bone to pick with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's pronouncements on the carbon offset industry. Which is not to say I don't sympathize-- his concerns about accountability and transparency are valid and must be addressed. If I didn't know where my money was going, I wouldn't offset, either.

In this case, Newsom has effectively thrown up his hands and said, We won't even bother to research the industry. We'll just go our own way. OK. A San Francisco-sized city can afford to run its own environmental sustainability programs.

But what about the rest of us?

The truth is, there are ways to know. There are methods of accountability and transparency. Certification in the carbon offset industry does exist. In fact, certification is everywhere, and those who buy offsets in large amounts (businesses, countries) know this.

Of course, that only gets you so far. Certification can be confusing, with competing standards among organizations, each of whom is vying for recognition and marketshare and to be the one true certification, etc., etc. But it's a starting point, and if Newsom and San Francisco had looked into it, they would have found organizations they could get behind, like Environmental Resources Trust and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's Joint Implementation standards.

So kudos to Newsom and San Francisco for offsetting their activities by funding local green initiatives, and here's to hoping next time they'll look a little closer at their options. And although Newsom, as a locally-elected politician, isn't surprising anyone by focusing his attention on his constituency, I would remind him that a ton is a ton, whether it's offset in Golden Gate Park or Nicaragua. The atmosphere's constituency is global.

(Photo by Flickr user -Just-Jen-.)

Watch This Video!

Believe it or not, there are still people out there who don't think global warming is real. I know - they post comments on this blog. So this video is for all of them, and everyone else who is tired of arguing about evidence.

It's an argument based on risk management, of all things, from an articulate, entertaining, and now widely-known science teacher named Greg Craven. If you haven't seen his video yet, you're a little behind: it's been viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube:



And here's the lead of the Oregonian story on Craven, published this past Sunday:

Central High School science teacher Greg Craven had one night before the last day of school to finish "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" in time to let his students know about it.

Downing cans of Red Bull, Craven holed up in a science lab of the Independence school, near Salem, editing all night. At 6 a.m., bleary-eyed, he posted his nine-minute, 33-second global warming video on YouTube.

His students linked to it on their MySpace pages. By that night, 60 people had clicked on it. The next day, 300. By Monday morning, 1,000. Craven was psyched. That kind of "viral" growth gets you noticed on YouTube, the Internet's anarchic video smorgasbord. Within two hours, his wife called: It's up to 10,000, she said.

Today, it's more than 4 million.

Americans Want to Go Green

A new poll says that three quarters of all Americans are planning to be more environmentally responsible in 2008. What with my being a part of the Carbonfund.org staff and all, I don't quite understand why all Americans aren't planning to be more environmentally responsible, but hey, it's a start.

The poll shows pretty clearly that Americans, the world's largest polluters, are finally getting on board with what the rest of the industrialized world has known for a long time: that the world is warming, that we humans are a major cause, and that we humans have a responsibility to do something about it.

Everybody's Offsetting!

All of us at Carbonfund.org have been blown away by the response to our Holiday Gift Card campaign. The 2007 Holiday Season will easily post a record number of 2 Ton Holiday Gift Card donations. Thanks to individuals like you, we are offsetting almost 24,000 more metric tons of carbon dioxide than at the beginning of December.

(The picture here is for our "ZeroCarbon" gift card - enough to offset the average American's carbon footprint for a year.)

We pitched the gift cards as a way to give the gift of a clean energy future to your friends and family, and individuals are certainly responding. We love reading the personal messages folks give us to print on the back of the cards. Seeing a loving note to a family member about taking responsibility for our impact on the earth and getting serious about climate change really gives the staff here at Carbonfund.org a lot of satisfaction.

But time is running out for holiday shopping. (And, almost as quickly, for the environment.) You can still buy Holiday Gift Cards today or tomorrow in order to receive them by December 25^th. Or, if you need to get a last-minute gift, you can purchase, receive and print out our e-certificates up until the last minute.

Getting the Arctic Mixed up with the Antarctic

It appears several recent readers of our blog (I'll call them "global warming skeptics") have made the same mistake I used to make as a 5-year-old: they're getting the Arctic mixed up with the Antarctic.

It all began when we commented last week on news that the melting of Arctic sea ice is happening at rates much faster than previously thought. In short, it is now being predicted that Arctic sea ice could be gone five years, rather than the previously estimated 30.

Since that post, we've received several comments referring to NASA satellite data showing that ice is at all time highs. After the third such comment, I decided to do a bit of research. Here's what I found: First, the data referenced refers to ice in the Antarctic, not the Arctic. Second, the amount of ice in the Antarctic is in fact completely in line with what models of the impact of global warming would predict.

For the best explanation of all this, I recommend Grist's How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic entry on the subject. But in case you don't want to read it from Grist, here's what I've learned, after probing the very knowledgeable climate change specialists here at Carbonfund.org:

It actually matters that the vast majority of industrialized nations are in the northern hemisphere and not the southern hemisphere. It matters because global weather patterns tend to carry the carbon dioxide emitted in vast amounts by those countries to the north pole, rather than the south pole.

In addition, the circumpolar ocean current that surrounds Antarctica (and that contributes to such horrible weather down there) actually isolates the area, acting as a buffer to warm water that would otherwise contribute to melting the ice down there. In the mean time, however, increased precipitation as a result of global warming could be contributing to more snowfall in the Antarctic, which means more ice pack in some areas.

(There's also something about the wobbling and tilt of the earth and "Milankovitch Cycles," but that's not something humans have any control over, so we'll just leave it out for now.)

Check out this cool map of the Antarctic from the British Antarctic Survey. It shows temperatures increasing in some areas - most notably the peninsula where the Larson B and Ross ice shelves recently broke off - and cooling in other areas.

Finally, the NASA study is only based on 20 years of satellite data - it's hardly the 650,000-year record of global CO2 levels that is telling us that humans have seriously harmed and altered the global balance. As Grist writes, "One must look at the balance of evidence, not just those bits one likes. And this balance is clearly in agreement with all other indicators that warming is real and rapid."

Thanks for all the comments and keep 'em coming!

Wrapping Up the Week's Climate News

Looks like the mainstream media are going with upbeat takes on Bali, which wraps today. Bali Talks Yield Some Progress on Global Climate Pact, says The Washington Post. At Bali Climate Talks, Signs of Compromise, offers The New York Times. Modest results for a conference with modest expectations to address a modest deadly serious, urgent global issue. Hmm.

Meantime, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the energy bill. David Roberts at Gristmill has written an insightful post with commentary on a conference call with Senator Kerry that a number of pro-environment bloggers took part in following the bill's passing. It details the political hoops through which legislation must pass. None of this exists in a vacuum, and anyone who hopes to change US climate change policy from the top down would do well to understand the politics of budgets, business, special interests, and election seasons.

Fortunately, individuals and businesses are not waiting for governments and politicians to take the lead. Carbonfund.org has been getting record amounts of traffic in recent days, as well as record levels of donations, particularly from people giving green gifts and carbon offsets for the holidays.

New Carbon Exchange: A Win For Transparency, Sensible Pricing

Evolution Markets announced recently it is partnering with the New York Mercantile Exchange to form a global carbon credit trading exchange. This is a good step that will bring additional transparency to the fast-growing carbon market.

According to Reuters, the new exchange will offer trade in both the massive U.N. carbon credit market (of which signatories to Kyoto participate) as well as the U.S. domestic voluntary market, which covers organizations like Carbonfund.org. We also hope the new exchange will bring some much-needed transparency to the widely-divergent pricing that exists in our market.

As a nonprofit, Carbonfund.org offers to offset a metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions for $5.50 per metric ton. Others offset for much more, from $11 a ton all the way up to $30 a ton and sometimes higher. In most cases, the tons are certified by the same third-party organizations, and in some instances even come from the exact same wind farms and reforestation projects.

Many carbon offsets from different organizations sold at different prices are in fact the exact same product. So why the different prices? You'll have to ask the for-profit organizations out there where exactly the money you give them goes, but we suspect the only thing keeping the price high is an undereducated consumer. In fact, we suspect many individuals looking to buy offsets simply buy them from the first organization they find, delighted to have found another way to reduce their impact on the planet.

For some quick and fast education on the different organizations out there, go to Eco Business Links - it's not affiliated with Carbonfund.org in any way and gives a clear, category-by-category comparison of the different organizations.

In the mean time, the formation of a unified carbon credit exchange should bring more clarity for consumers about the actual price of reducing our carbon footprints. Here's a hint: it's not as expensive as you might think.

Global Warming: From Science to Sensational In the Media

There it was on the front cover of my Express newspaper this morning, global warming made sensational, with the headline, "Scientist: 'Arctic Is Screaming'"

A free publication of The Washington Post, Express is not known for its hard-hitting, in-depth news stories. It's packed full almost exclusively of wire stories designed to give commuters the news short and sweet. It also usually picks from among the more sensational news stories to plaster on the front.

What Express really drove home for me this morning is that the media doesn't view global warming as that pesky science story that's difficult to explain and would be better buried somewhere in the C Section rather than spread across the front page. Global warming as a news story has gone from science to sensational.

And why not? Listen to this lead:

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

You want to know what the previous estimate was for when Arctic sea ice would be gone? More than 30 years. Want to know how long ago that estimate was made? One year.

I'd love to say, "It doesn't get more sensational than this," but the thing is, I know it will.

An Argument Over How to Discuss What to Negotiate About in Bali

The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin checks in with an update on the U.S. presence at Bali. The headline ("For U.S., Policy Discord Plays Out at Bali Climate Change Talks") reflects the split that still defines this country's thinking on global climate change years after the other industrialized nations have united to work on solutions.

U.S. negotiators, under instructions from the current administration, are essentially playing hard to get. "We don't think it's prudent to start out with a set of numbers," US Chief Negotiator Harlan L. Watson said Sunday. "We're here to talk about the differences and try to resolve them. That's what negotiations are all about."

The differences, of course, ultimately come down to numbers.

The numbers Watson refers to are a specific temperature rise or emissions reduction target. A huge argument looms over what those numbers should be, but until everyone can at least agree to actually talk about the numbers themselves, that discussion can't happen. And therefore real change can't happen. Here's hoping this administration (or, if not this one, then the next) gets over its fear of numbers.

(And a reminder that at Carbonfund.org, we are quite comfortable dealing in real numbers. A number we especially like is zero, as in ZeroCarbon, or enough to offset the 50,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions the average American is responsible for each year. Two and ten, as in tons offset by our Holiday Gift Cards, are pretty great, too.)

Holiday Gift Cards-- Making the Holidays Easier and Cleaner

One thing everyone on my gift-giving list would be happy to receive is the assurance of a clean future. While no one can promise that, with Carbonfund.org’s new Holiday Gift Cards, I can at least show them how individuals can make a difference.

Each card represents an amount of emissions that have been offset and serves as a physical reminder of what’s being done to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or to prevent them from entering it in the first place.

Regular readers of this blog already know we’re a nonprofit and the country’s leading carbon offset organization, and we offer offsetters their choice of projects: a wind farm in Iowa, for example, or a reforestation project in Louisiana.The cards are manufactured from post-consumer recycled material and printed by Natural Source Printing, a CarbonFree business. They’re ideal for stuffing stockings or inserting into envelopes. Take a look—just try not to wait until the last minute.

Gore Accepts Nobel Peace Prize

Quoting poets, statesmen, and, of course, climate specialists, and warning of a coming global catastrophe if we fail to collectively act, Al Gore delivered his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway today. Read the full text of the speech here. He begins:

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency - a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst - though not all - of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

And ends:

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn't you act?"

Or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

New Report Says US Could Cut Emissions Cheaply

A new study by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. says cutting US greenhouse gas emissions by 3 to 4.5 gigatons per year - about 50% to 75% of total current US output - could cost in the tens of billions of dollars, a number much lower than many assume. In addition, technology to make many of these changes already exists. You can read the full study here.

Full disclosure: I haven't been thinking that seriously about climate change until fairly recently. No doubt there are still many surprises in store for me, but already I've been hit by big ones: how fast the global average temperature is rising, how quickly Arctic ice is disappearing into the sea.

But perhaps the biggest surprise is what it all means for business. The business opportunities that will be created by the "greening" of the country (and the world) are staggering. The McKinsey report has something to say about this: "A concerted, nationwide effort to reduce GHG emissions would almost certainly stimulate economic forces and create business opportunities that we cannot foresee today and that may accelerate the rate of abatement the nation can achieve, thereby reducing the overall cost."

Calvin Coolidge said, "The business of America is business," and the author Steven Millhauser has a character of his defend "business as America's only source of originality." For better or worse, it's part of our national vision of ourselves.

Working at Carbonfund.org has opened my eyes to the number of businesses small and large that want to get in front of climate change. Of course, government has a huge part to play, and in fact the McKinsey report takes pains to state that coordinated action is needed among all sectors of society, but I had always assumed government was to be the primary mover. Now I'm not so sure. Businesses react quickly, and once the marketplace fully appreciates the potential of, say, alternative energy (as Carbonfund.org is helping it to do), our prospects vastly improve.

It's All About the Buildings

Among the dozens of news tidbits coming out of Bali, one about a speech given by Kaarin Taipale, of the U.N.'s Marrakesh Task Force on Sustainable Buildings and Construction, reminded me of a story I wrote in my previous life as a reporter.

The tidbit (read it here) reports that fully 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by buildings and construction, and that the technology exists today to slash emissions enough so that countries can meet the requirements of the Kyoto treaty more quickly and cheaply than is commonly thought possible.

What was that? We could quickly and easily meet the requirements of the Kyoto treaty simply by making our buildings more energy efficient? In a word, yes. In the environmental community, there are many for whom this story is hardly news. I wrote a piece in the Albuquerque Journal (read it here) as far back as 2005 on the need for more energy efficient buildings, and there tens of thousands of folks out there who came to the same realization a whole lot earlier than I did.

The story was based largely off an interview I did with a Santa Fe architect named Ed Mazria, who has been touting the benefits of more energy efficient building for years (Visit his Web site, Architecture 2030). Here's an excerpt:

Mazria, who has spent three decades writing and teaching about energy conservation, presented some of the latest science behind global warming to the commission. He coupled the presentation with a simple message: Focus on the building sector if you want to avoid global warming, not the transportation sector.

Back then, I was learning for the first time about the central role buildings play in global warming. Judging from the news coming out of Bali, it looks like people are still learning.

Senate Climate Change Bill Survives First Round

The AP reports on the movement of a climate change bill through the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Warner, calls for a 70% cut in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in the US. It also calls for the creation of a "cap and trade" system, under which companies would receive a certain allocation of GHG emissions and the right to sell unused or buy extra units.

The bill survived dozens of amendments introduced to derail it and was favorably reported by the committee. While it's far from clear that the bill will ever pass the full Senate, it's good to see such a bill make it this far. Read more about the committee's long day of debate at Gristmill.

Orbitz, Allstate, Dubbed Environmental Leaders in the Chicago Tribune Today

The Chicago Tribune writes in a story today that companies like Orbitz and Allstate, both Carbonfund.org business partners, are "cashing in" by supporting the cause against global warming. Tribune staff reporter Robert Manor spoke to our communications manager, Russell Simon to prepare for the story:

"Consumers are demanding that companies do meaningful things on behalf of the environment," Simon said. And the businesses that respond are leaders in fighting greenhouse gases and deserve respect for that, he said.

Manor asked us a good question yesterday, if a little bit of a leading one: Isn't what these companies are doing really just for marketing purposes? The answer is that businesses are responding, as businesses do, to consumer demand for greener, more eco-friendly corporate citizens.

As an organization that speaks to business leaders on a daily basis about how they can reduce their environmental impact, we can also say that these leaders are often just as dedicated to doing their part for the planet as is the average individual just trying to make a difference.

And as consumers demand more and more that businesses be stewards of the environment, businesses in turn are seeing that to be an environmental leader is also to be a smart business person.

Indonesia Offsets Climate Change Conference Emissions

Environmental News Network reports Indonesia is offsetting the carbon emissions generated by the UN Climate Change Conference taking place in Bali over the next two weeks through reforestation projects.

With more than 10,000 people flying to the conference, thousands of tons of carbon will be emitted into the atmosphere. Indonesia's environment minister says that the pine, acacia, and meranti trees that have been planted on about 11,000 acres will eventually sequester 900,000 tons of carbon dioxide, more than enough to offset the emissions generated. Read more about the offsets here.

While Bali is a textbook example of many of the Island-areas that are most threatened by climate change, and while we applaud the move to offset emissions from the conference, we also wonder if wouldn't have been better for the UN to take a cue from our slogan - Reduce what you can, Offset what you can't - and held the conference at a more convenient location than Bali, which requires connecting flights from Jakarta.

And while we can't speak for the effect this next suggestion might have on negotiations, the UN could also think about taking advantage of video conferencing technology, and eliminate the need for flights entirely.