So often politicians obscure their message with caveats, euphemisms and wonky references to elaborately named legislation.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) took the conversation a different direction yesterday when speaking to student activists assembled for an online teleconference Tuesday night sponsored by Consequence09.org.

He appealed for clarity on cap-and-trade, suggesting that “cap-and-trade” is needless jargon, a “crazy name that everyone hates”  and has acquired too much baggage.

We need to heave  the insider-speak, he said, and call cap-and-trade what it really is: “Pollution reduction.”

This point has been made before. But perhaps if it were made by leaders like Kerry, and more often, it could get a foothold.

It is not obfuscation or over-simplification or a smarmy political move to say that what cap-and-trade manifestos are all about is controlling carbon emissions, that is, reducing pollution.

Sure, the devils in the details. By whatever name you call it, the new plan will zing polluters and reward those who do better. There will still be a lot of questions that need answering under the new “pollution reduction” program: How a big a price will polluters pay? Which greenhouse gases will be included? How long will companies have to get their act together before penalties are in full force? How big of a reward will the clean energy mavericks receive? How long will the rewards endure? These are critical details.

But in terms of winning people over, honestly, to the concept, and crawling out of the conversational tar pit where this whole cap-and-trade debate seems to have become mired, Kerry’s idea sounds like a good syntactical move. We need to focus on the core of what we want to accomplish, and most Americans, polls show, want a cleaner, more secure future — one that includes pollution reduction.

In fact, the latest poll out, one by CNN, reported just this week that 6 in 10 Americans support “cap-and-trade legislation” (though other polls have shown that far less than a majority understand cap-and-trade).

If Congress follows that same pattern, Americans could have a climate action bill — or energy security bill, but let’s not discuss those labels right now — later this year.

Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are sponsoring the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act which has been characterized as a strong bill aimed at curbing climate change and helping America achieve energy independence. But many Republicans have reservations.

Kerry urged those listening to the teleconference to reach out to their senators now, especially those Republicans and fence-sitting Democrats, to let them know they want a clean energy, climate change bill with real, um, pollution reduction targets.

“All of you can have a huge impact on how this works,” he said. “If people in the grassroots will gin up the emails and gin up the phone calls…to calm political fears that they (undecided politicians) are somehow stepping out and cutting across the currents.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Palm Oil, an ingredient found in most processed food, has been the subject of much environmental debate in recent years over its role in deforestation. It is commonly found in cooking oil and as an ingredient in cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and some plastics. Palm oil also has been considered for use in the production of biodiesel.

There have been many attempts to make palm oil sustainable. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was even established in 2003 to do just that. Unfortunately, six years later, there is still no system that can effectively trace palm oil beyond the processor to the plantation level. Companies that manufacture products using palm oil have little way of knowing where the controversial substance originated — which leaves the question of whether and to what degree palm oil is sustainably farmed up in the air.

This week, a press campaign run by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) and aimed at putting the best spin on the industry ran aground when Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a magazine ad by the Malaysian boosters.

The headline of the MPOC’s magazine advertisement read: “Palm Oil: The Green Answer.”

As if that were not misleading enough, the ad made many more claims, such as:

• “Palm oil is the only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a large portion of the world’s increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer goods, foodstuffs and biofuel … Malaysia’s forest cover is certain to be maintained.”
• “With the increased attention paid to oil crops, and oil palm in particular, a number of criticisms have been leveled at Malaysia’s palm oil industry, from accusations of rampant deforestation and unsound environmental practices to unfair treatment of farmers and indigenous people. These allegations – protectionist agendas hidden under a thin veneer of environmental concern – are based neither on scientific evidence, nor, for that matter, on fact.”
• “In addition to its green credentials, Malaysia’s palm oil industry also plays an important role in the industrialization of the country and the alleviation of poverty, especially amongst rural populations.”

The advertisement violated substantiation, truthfulness, and the environmental claims sections of the Advertising Standards Authority’s Code, according to the group’s assessment.

“Although we acknowledged that some Malaysian palm oil companies had sought certification from the RSPO [the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil], we understood that the scheme and the certification of biofuels in general was still the subject of debate,” stated the Advertising Standards Authority’s Assessment.

They report explained that “palm oil had played a role in the development of the Malaysian economy in its shift from reliance on rubber and tin mining” and it acknowledged MPOCs assertion that this created one million jobs.

But it also noted that environmental and human rights groups had legitimate complaints about palm oil producers. Friends of the Earth, for instance, contends that palm oil production creates adverse social impacts by displacing indigenous communities affected by deforestation.

Issues over housing and land rights and low wages and poor treatment of workers “compromised MPOCs claim that palm oil had a societal benefit,” the advertisers assessment stated.

The advertising regulators concluded that the magazine ad must no longer appear in its current form.

There is no such thing as sustainable palm oil, at least not yet, according to the ASA.

Malaysian leader presses palm oil’s virtues

The MPOC fired back on Wednesday, complaining that the ASA was relying on FOE’s biased environmental conclusions and arguing that palm oil, being the cheapest vegetable oil, should be available to consumers, especially the poor.

“Today, the ASA ruled that an advertorial in The Economist highlighting the economic importance and environmental sustainability of Malaysian Palm Oil should not appear in any other UK media outlets. The ruling followed a complaint by Friends of the Earth about the advertorial. By censoring our message, this relatively small group of people is blocking the entire British public’s access to a diverse range of views and information about Palm Oil,” wrote the Malaysian group’s CEO Tan Sri Datuk Dr. Yusof Basiron.

“Consumers have a right to have information about the various products and services available to them and a right to determine for themselves which they want. Consequently, we are deeply concerned that the ASA is acting as an interested party in the public debate on palm oil rather than as a neutral and objective arbiter.”

A majority of Americans – about 75 percent – support regulating greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and manufacturing that would reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But only a bare majority – 52 percent – support a cap-and-trade approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 42 percent oppose such a program, which is the type of approach taken in the Waxman-Markey climate legislation expected to be voted on in the US House of Representations, possibly Friday.

Support for controls on emissions wavered even more as those polled were asked whether they’d pay higher electricity prices to help bring about reduced greenhouse gases.

Only 44 percent said they would back a cap-and-trade system if it meant monthly electricity bills would be $25 higher. Support was stronger, at 56 percent, if the proposed monthly electricity increase was just $10 a month, according to the randomized poll of 1,001 adults.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that regulating greenhouse gases would cost the typical household about $175 a year in 2020, when the shift to clean energy and emissions controls would be in high gear.

But opponents of the pending climate legislation, especially conservative Republicans, argue that costs will be much higher.

The poll found that people living in households making less than $50,000 a year were the most concerned about the costs of the climate regulation.

Young people were the most supportive of federal regulation to control climate-related emissions (about 60 percent said they supported cap-and-trade) and senior citizens the least supportive (about 40 percent said they favored cap-and-trade).

Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach to controlling GHG emissions. It sets caps on the amount of pollution companies are allowed and lets them bid for extra credits if they go over their emissions allowance or sell credits if they keep under pollution limits. Limits for everyone are lowered over time to reduce carbon emissions.

Global wind power installations grew by 29 percent in 2008, exceeding past performance and bringing the world’s commercial wind power capacity to 120,798 megawatts.

Wind now produces 1.5 percent of the world’s electricity with 80 countries using commercial wind power, according to an analysis by the Worldwatch Institute released this week.

The U.S. claimed much of that growth, with more than 42 percent of the power capacity added in 2008. The U.S. was the leader in new installations (passing Germany), and also became the world leader in cumulative wind power capacity with 25,170 megawatts of capacity at the end of 2008, according to Worldwatch.

Natural gas still added capacity faster than wind; despite wind’s surging growth trajectory.

Elsewhere in the world, wind strengthened its position in several key population centers, according to Worldwatch:

• Wind became Europe’s leading source of new electric capacity with 8,877 megawatts added, outpacing new natural gas and coal facilities. Wind power now accounts for 8 percent of the European Union’s power capacity. Europe ended the year with 65,946 megawatts of capacity.

• Germany leads the region in new installations, and despite a slowdown in production in 2008, still expects to generate 31 percent of the nation’s power from wind by 2030. It ranks second in the world in total wind capacity with 23,903 megawatts, just behind the U.S.

• Spain was fourth worldwide in new installations in 2008, and ranks third after the United States and Germany for cumulative wind power capacity with 16,740 megawatts.

• Asia accounted for nearly one-third of the global wind capacity added in 2008, with China passing its 2010 wind power target of 10,000 megawatts and ending 2008 with 12,200 megawatts in place. China ranks 4th in the world for total capacity.

• India ranked third in wind capacity additions for 2008 with 1,800 megawatts of new wind added and now ranks 5th for total capacity worldwide.

• Nearly 400,000 people are employed in the wind industry across the world, a number that could temporarily decline because of the economic downturn, according to Worldwatch, which also predicts that lower construction costs could lead to a long-term boom in wind.

“We’ve seen rapid and consistent global growth in the wind sector over the past decade, with an increasing number of countries turning to wind as a source of power,” said the report’s author, senior researcher Janet Sawin. “If these trends continue as expected, wind energy will play an integral role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recognized 25 U.S. cities for having the most Energy Star buildings in 2008.

The top 10 are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Washington, D.C., Dallas-Fort Worth, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta and Seattle.

Los Angeles ranked first with 262 buildings earning the Energy Star rating, which can be applied to rehabbed and new properties. San Francisco had 194 buildings; Houston, 145; Washington D.C., 136 and Dallas, 126.

Energy Star, the EPA’s label for high efficiency, sets standards for everthing from light bulbs and appliances to buildings.

“An Energy Star building,” says Energy Star spokesperson Maura Beard, “uses 35 percent less energy and emits 35 percent less greenhouse gases than average buildings.”

Looking at the list, it might surprise some to see cities such as Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston — known more for their air quality challenges than for green building — at the top of the rankings.

Ms. Beard explains that the list reflects improvements in buildings, which will be reflected in air quality gains later on.

“In terms of this list, we looked specifically at [a building’s] reductions in greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. This is a big concern in states like California and Texas where there is a lot of demand on their infrastructure,” she says.

There were some standout buildings in each of these three cities, she says. She praised a retrofit of a JC Penney store that was built in 1969 in Downey Calif., in Los Angeles County. “They did a beautiful job improving the building’s energy efficiency, starting with its operating characteristics,” says Beard. (Also this week, JC Penney, an early adopter of the Energy Star program with 52 stores that have earned the label, won the first Energy Star Award for Sustained Excellence in Energy Management.)

In Houston, the Green Valley Elementary School involved the student body in its transformation. “Here the kids formed patrol teams making sure lights weren’t left on in the cafeteria and elsewhere when not in use,” says Beard. And in Dallas, the Hines real estate firm, won the Energy Star rating for its Galleria North Tower office building.

The Galleria office building is attached to a spacious, upscale, air-conditioned mall, which raises the question: What about the energy efficiency of malls in general?

“Shopping malls are difficult [structures] to measure efficiency in,” says Beard. “For Energy Star, we collect data from the Department of Energy, then build a model. There are 12 different types of buildings included in the Energy Star ratings. For example, you can’t compare a hospital to a small store. Your have to compare peers, apples to apples.

“For now, we can just measure the efficiency of the anchor stores at a mall. It’s difficult to measure each of the many small stores. We are working with the Simon group, who manages many of the country’s malls, to improve this.”

The EPA reports that in 2008, more than 3,300 commercial buildings and manufacturing plants earned the Energy Star rating. This translates into a savings of more than $1 billion in utility bills and more than 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The structures range from schools and hospitals to office buildings and assembly plants.

More than 6,200 U.S. buildings have qualified for the Energy Star rating in total, says EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones. This represents an annual savings in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 2 million cars off the road.

Depending on the climate and location, buildings, homes and offices and workplaces, are estimated to be responsible for about 40 percent of the world’s GHG gases.

The Energy Star rating system for buildings is similar to the green certification system devised by the U.S. Green Building Council known as LEED or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Efficiency and Design. But Energy Star is more focused on onsite power savings, while LEED looks at how building materials are sourced and considers broader environmental issues like how close a building is to mass transit opportunities.

“LEED certification tends to be more for new buildings and includes everything, green roofs, supplies and materials, recycling, even the commute,” says Beard. “Energy Star is purely about energy efficiency.”

“It works best if the two [certification systems] are used hand in hand,” she says. “Energy Star is more rigorous in terms of energy efficiency. With LEED, you can get a bunch of points for many different attributes. If a building doesn’t score highly on energy efficiency, it could still earn LEED certification because it might score well on other levels.” (Though LEED standards are currently being tightened and it would be difficult for a building to earn the highest level ratings without being energy efficient.)

EPA’s new chief Lisa P. Jackson is pleased with the results of the Energy Star cities. In a statement released yesterday, she said, “EPA commends all of these cities…[that] are now using more energy efficient appliances and dwellings. They are saving energy, saving money and protecting our environment.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Related stories:

• KTRK-Houston: Go inside Houston’s green school
• KGO-San Francisco: North Bay city makes ‘green living’ a law

To judge from the coverage of Earth-friendly measures and green innovations in the news, you might think that ever since An Inconvenient Truth Americans have been moving, however slowly, toward addressing the causes of climate change.

Not so fast. According to the Department of Energy’s independent number-crunching agency the Energy Information Administration, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States actually rose in 2007 to a level 1.4 percent above the previous year. What’s more, that growth was higher than the average annual growth recorded since 1990.

The report, summarized in a press release and readable in full here, finds that “total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 7,282 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent” (including non-CO2 gases like methane) during the year, although “GHG intensity,” or the ratio of emissions to the nation’s gross domestic product, fell.

“Since 1990, U.S. GHG emissions have grown at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent” the summary reports, making 2007’s 1.4% figure quite a spike. In part, the researchers attribute the rise to “unfavorable weather patterns, where both heating and cooling degree-days were higher in 2007 than 2006, and an increase in the carbon intensity of electricity generation, driven by decreased availability of hydropower.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

In the race for top carbon emissions polluter, the United States is still Number One, but China is sprinting forward and could soon edge into the lead. The current Olympics host nation accounted for a “staggering 57 percent of the growth of emissions” worldwide this century, and will likely surpass the U.S. as the single biggest belcher of fossil fuel emissions sometime this year, according to the Worldwatch Institute.

The standings right now: The U.S. currently contributes 19.5 percent of global fossil fuel emissions compared with China’s 18.3 percent.

China’s pole vault onto the world stage of top polluters has been fueled by rapid industrialization and huge growth in coal plants, which provide about 70 percent of the nation’s commercial electricity, according to the Vital Signs Update released Thursday by Worldwatch, a Washington research and watchdog group.

Still, the United States can claim one title that leaves China far behind, the United States’ per capita carbon emissions eclipse that of all other nations. They exceed China’s by 4 to 1 and India’s by 13 to 1, according to the report.

The burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – accounts for the majority of CO2 emissions, which means most industrialized nations contribute to the rising cloud of greenhouse gases (which include CO2 and other gases) encircling the globe. Coal is the worst polluter, giving off more carbon gases per unit of energy generated, and it is also the cheapest.

Globally, carbon emissions grew by 20 percent from 2000 to 2007, according to the Worldwatch analysis. Industrializing India contributed 8 percent of that growth. The United States’ and Europe’s emissions accounted for 4 percent and 3 percent, respectively.

As the report points out, accords between industrialized and developing nations, will be key to regulating spiraling carbon emissions. This is one race best run in reverse.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

California is at it again. The state stickler for clean air, which tried to regulate car emissions but was blocked by the federal EPA in late 2007, is now asking the feds to regulate pollution from aircraft, ships and off-road vehicles.

CA attorney Jerry Brown said that California, joined by other states and environmental groups, intends to sue the EPA if it continues to “wantonly ignore its duty” to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from these commercial vehicles and agricultural and commercial equipment.

“Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel and cause massive greenhouse gas pollution yet President Bush stalls with one bureaucratic dodge after another,” Attorney General Brown said in a news release this week.

The way California interprets the law: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is obliged to regulate greenhouse gases both under the Clean Air Act and under legal precedent set by a Massachusetts case. Brown has petitioned the EPA three times to begin regulatory action and the agency has responded with a preliminary notice that it is considering the issue.

The California news release calls the EPA’s response “pathetically weak” and serves notice that it will sue on ground the feds are delaying action on pollution that endangers the public. Under the law, the EPA has 180 days (about six months) to answer the petition.

Off-road vehicles (tractors, snowmobiles, riding lawn mowers), ships and aircraft emit greenhouse gases equivalent to those of 270 million cars, according to the California news release. The Attorney General’s office wants intervention to push airlines toward using cleaner fuels. Regulating the speed at which ships travel would reduce their pollution. Cruise and cargo ships account for about 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the news release.

The entities joining California in warning the EPA they intend to sue include Connecticut, Oregon, and New York City.  The AP has reported that New Jersey and Pennsylvania have similar intentions.

Environmental groups, including Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center, have filed a similar petition.

In 2007 the EPA blocked California and 16 other states from setting their own regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, saying that the Congress had sufficiently addressed the issue with a law requiring better fuel efficiency. California is appealing that decision in court, citing its intent to enact stricter air quality regulations.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media