This week, CNN announced its Top Ten Environmental Moments of the Decade.
And the winners were:

1.      The Toyota Prius

2.     The (Copenhagen) summit: COP15

3.     Al Gore’s star power: “An Inconvenient Truth” and the Nobel Peace Prize

4.     The Rise of CFLs

5.     Heating up: A decade of extreme weather

6.     Noughtie talk: “Carbon Footprint”

7.     The devil is in the details: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report

8.     Ten years of growth: Renewable Energy

9.     It’s going to cost you: The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change

10.   Cap and trade

What do all 10 of these have in common?  Carbon Emissions. Yes, the environment is more than just climate change – biodiversity, water scarcity, deforestation, air quality – all of these are really important environmental challenges. However, the single greatest threat in most of these areas IS climate change. Biodiversity?  It doesn’t really matter how well we protect endangered species of plants or animals on the ground, if the changing climate decimates their habitat.  Water scarcity?  Lima, Peru, may be out of water by 2025 because all of the glaciers that provide the city’s water will have disappeared.  This is impressive as much as it is telling.

All roads lead to Rome.  We have one central environmental issue to address – now that we have identified it, can we do what is necessary to act on it?

For the past 80 years or so we have been living in a world where miles per gallon and horsepower have been the standards by which we measure the performance of our cars and trucks. Welcome to the world where CO2 per mile becomes the new measuring stick.

Earlier this year, President Obama announced an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), which would bring the fleet average up to 35.5 miles per gallon (42 mpg for cars and 27 mpg for trucks) or 250 grams of CO2 per mile, by 2016. Current CAFE standards require an automaker’s fleet of cars to average 27.5 mpg and trucks must get 24 mpg.

Normally, domestic automakers would be screaming at this kind of announcement, claiming that they would be put out of business. But, so far, the opposite has been true.

According the EPA, the increase in CAFE standards will reduce CO2 by 950 million metric tons over the next 5 years. If you do the math, that equals gasoline 107 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes roughly 378 million gallons of gasoline a day, which equates to about 3.4 million metric tons of CO2. Yearly totals are about 137.9 billion gallon or 1.2 billion metric tons of CO2.

There’s a lot of good that will come out of these new standards: lowered dependence on oil, reduced greenhouse gases and a lower relative price of gas. The problem is that no one will be forced to buy these more fuel-efficient vehicles as has been proved in the past. Americans will buy the biggest and most powerful vehicles they can afford. The only thing that restricts us is the price of gas. Ironically, it’s possible that if the new CAFE standards have the desired effect they may actually drive more demand for gas guzzlers. Then we get stuck on the rollercoaster.

Higher CAFE standards combined with cap-and-trade legislation is the magic combination that will drive demand to more efficient transportation. CAFE will help the auto manufacturers to plan out to 2016 (and beyond) and cap and trade will assure the plan doesn’t get altered by fickle U.S. consumers who are easily distracted by gas prices. CO2 per mile, here we come.

We tend to take a very pragmatic view of Climate Change issues. We were talking about it today and realized that dealing with Climate Change in the United States is like going through Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

None of us have had to deal with “physiological needs” caused by Climate Change, unless you count Katrina victims or the folks who got caught in Georgia’s 500-year flood. Most of us are safe from whatever Mother Nature throws at us. We stay comfy in our homes without a worry.

If you’re living without sturdy roof over your head or near a large body of water, you’re probably not so concerned about “self actualization” or “aesthetic and cognitive” needs when the tsunami or typhoon is headed your way. Survival is top of mind.

We have a short window of opportunity to ponder “understanding, knowledge, goodness, justice, beauty and order.” If we wait too long we will all be living at the bottom of the pyramid.

While I write this blog, I am sitting at the gate for a delayed flight at O’Hare. This is not a unique position – just ask the hundreds surrounding me. All I can think about are all the lights that are on despite the big windows bringing in natural light. It’s a common occurrence: office buildings being fully lit and heated when they are only partially full, cars with one passenger and realizing that my printer is on at my office.

I recall a speech from Mandy Mahoney, the Sustainability Director for the city of Atlanta, when she said that the electricity usage at government buildings were a straight line – lights never went off, heat stayed at 70 degrees 24/7/365. She rectified this immediately and now she sees mountains – high usage at peak and low usage at nights and on weekends.

I also recall a presentation at one of our client’s – their very knowledgeable sustainability director said that U.S. usage of landfill methane for electricity generation is limited because of power outages. Basically, if you use landfill gas to create electricity (or wind turbines), there can be dead moments (think of the gas popping). This can lead to lights flickering or, dare I say it, your TV goes off and on.

I am now thinking about a client who discussed hypermiling. As Wikipedia defines it – “Hypermiling is the act of driving using techniques that maximize fuel economy. Those who practice these techniques are referred to as “hypermilers.” Basically, it means coasting as much as possible. A true hypermiler turns off their engine when stopped, does not use AC and keeps the windows closed (even when it’s hot) at higher speeds. Now that’s a commitment.

It is easy to throw stones – my lights stay on too often, I do not drive as efficiently as I should and I fly too often. I do offset, however. After all, I can’t turn back the clock and un-fly to Chicago, so the least I can do is cleanup after myself. Some say that it’s too easy to offset. That may be because there is not enough financial pain involved. Actually if more people offset prices would go up, more money would go to CO2 reducing projects and we would have an extra incentive to change our behavior.

We had a meeting with a client in South Carolina Friday. Then I met with the Chicago Climate Exchange Monday. It is interesting how these two disparate groups are saying the same thing. Both see the logic in cap and trade versus command and control. Neither wants the EPA to manage the process (and in my opinion the EPA does not want to either). Both believe a cap-and-trade bill is going to occur in the first quarter of next year.  Both recognize that there needs to be a fundamental change to how we look at our inputs; whether it is oil, gas, or electricity.

The CCX is focused on trading environmental instruments. The amazing thing about the CCX is that they have contracts for the voluntary emissions reductions (CFI’s), Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) credits, California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) credits, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs),  and when issued credits under eventual legislation. This doesn’t even include the trading of emissions under the European scheme, which is done by the ECX. The exchange only creates contracts because they know they can make a market. So our friends in South Carolina are not the only ones recognizing the eventuality of a market.

The CCX is currently running a “special” - it normally costs $0.15 per metric ton to register a project on the exchange - however, they lowered the price to $0.05. This has led to increased registration of offset projects. Further, the current legislation includes all the offset project types that the CCX has allowed. Now, it is unclear whether the protocol will match those of the CCX (probably will be similar but technically different) The difference will be that of measurement not acceptance. So a project under the CCX may create 1,000 metric tons of offset could create 1,100 (or 900) metric tons under an eventual protocol.

The reason we work with the exchange is threefold:

1) We recognize that an exchange will lead to the most efficient clearing price

2) Forward thinkers can manage their future risks using futures, options and bankable credits

3) No matter how the eventual carbon markets come out the CCX contracts are written to adjust to them.

I went to the POWER meeting last week, which is sponsored by the Green Foodservice Alliance at Teds Montana Grill. It was well attended and the presentations were very good. We are fortunate to be members of the GFA and have never been disappointed by their events.

The group of professionals included, Waste Management, Republic Services, waste-to-energy companies, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Recycling, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Sustainability Division, Restaurant owners, and Industrial Composters to name a few. This group gets that waste is reusable and valuable.

I was lucky enough to speak with Scott Seydel at lunch and learn all about reusing carpeting. There are some very exciting things going on, using old carpet for energy in cement production as well as other potential energy options. 

I saw an interesting presentation by Plasma Waste Recycling  (PWR), which was about waste to energy through a plasma process. I learned that plasma is the fourth state - putting energy into gas. The byproduct of this process is 80% syngas, 17% slag and 3% molten metal. The syngas created has various uses including electricity generation. The concept seems to be an obvious boon to society. The waste goes directly into the process with no separation needed. On a large scale basis, 40% of the energy created is needed to run the process.

From a CO2 basis, the burning of the syngas to create electricity does emit greenhouse gases, although they are lower than the combustion of natural gas. The landfill and methane avoidance creates a net reduction in CO2, but not enough to make it valuable. It is probably more valuable to create renewable energy credits or fuel switching credit, as an environmental benefit.

The group that creates the energy says that the optimum savings are in situations where high-tipping fee environments and/or high-electricity prices come into play. Waste to plasma power is most effective in the Northeast, California or Hawaii. The question is why is plasma power not more prevalent? What is the missing piece?

The second presentation was about using soldier fly larvae to feed on animal waste to reduce methane. Soldier flies are not disease carriers and they do not bother humans or animals. (Clearly they have to make sure they don’t replace one problem with another like the Crane toad fiasco that’s been plaguing Australia.) The larvae eat the waste which reduces the smell from the waste. You can imagine the pictures of maggots. Then larvae can be ground into fish feed, feedstock for energy or potentially used in other applications.  The cost of fish meal has skyrocketed up to $1,200 a ton so opportunity knocked. 

We are glad that people are being proactive, allowing innovation to steer us to a greener future.

There has been a lot of news lately on the problems of waste generated by dairy farms. We were discussing why there are so few biodigesters being used to help solve the problem. I thought of the tipping point. When an idea is clear, why is it not commonplace?

Biodigesters convert organic wastes into a nutrient-rich liquid fertilizer and biogas fuel. The biogas a.k.a., methane, can easily be converted into a source of electrical and heat energy. The heat energy can be used to change water temperature for the use on the farm. Further, the animal waste is disposed of, reducing the need for cleaning/carting it off. Other feedstock includes crop stalks or waste water. I recently found out that glycerin, a byproduct of biodiesel creation, is also a good feedstock. One drawback is that glycerin does not work well in colder weather.

In Georgia, there is only one large scale biodigester–the Wright Family Dairy, which is one of our featured offset projects. The Wright Family made a large investment when they purchased their biodigester. Fortunately, they are getting a quicker return due to the offsets and electricity generated. Ironically, biodigesters are more common in developing countries, particularly India, Nepal, China and Vietnam. It is clear that those places have less developed electricity grids making the biodigester more necessary for day-to-day use.

From a greenhouse gas perspective, biodigesters significantly reduce emissions and make for strong offset projects. From a quality of life basis, it is an obvious winner, with fewer odors, fewer pathogens and a reduction in surface water contamination.

The downside, as it was explained to me, is that biodigesters require a big investment and a lot of maintenance. The waste needs to be ground up and the effluent needs to be removed. Many farmers found the digester going into disrepair after a year or so because their expertise was running a farm not a biodigester. On the flip side there were farmers that were great a keeping digesters in good repair but had difficulty running a farm.

Seems like there might be an opportunity for a business to service large dairy farms that want to realize the benefits of a biodigester but don’t want to have to maintain them. If you already have an existing service, we’d like to hear from you and help spread the word. We are way past the tipping point—let’s make biodigesters the rule not the exception.

As time goes by we are seeing many skeptics move to acceptance of Climate Change. There was a good blog post from the National Post that discusses the rationale (or irrational) reasons why people inherently don’t want to accept Climate Change. The article basically asserts that it’s too much trouble to do anything now and therefore we are inclined to ignore.

This led to a good post/article from Scientific American that discusses the research that would bring a person to the natural conclusion that Climate Change is real. Lastly, the initial blog led to this great article which sources the answers to climate myths.

No major news organization will include comments from Climate Change Deniers anymore. So why does the story continue? Why are there people who refute the science and evidence. Well, simply put, there is a lot of money behind the scenes that is vested heavily in maintaining a Carbon intensive world.

We have practically ignored “climategate” and now we feel pretty good about it. The AP did a story breaking down the truth about the e-mails. According to the AP, “E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”

Their findings are not surprising; if you take a group of scientists, academics, politicians or almost anyone, there are going to be questions and disagreements. Privately, uncomfortable issues are going to be raised-otherwise something’s wrong with the process. That’s how any organization works; it’s called “frank and healthy” discussion.  Organization’s can’t function if there is fear that conversations are going to be taken out of context and released to the general public-especially when trying to solve a complicated scientific concept like anthropogenic climate change.

It’s obvious that climate change deniers are satisfied with playing the delay game by starting fires (pun intended) to distract us from the important work that needs to be done.

Since the holiday season it a time to reflect, we thought it was appropriate to publish our Mission Statement:

We welcome your comments.