Future Energy

Is it Time for Fair Trade Oil?

Source: tropical-rainforest-animals.com

Oil is oil is oil and it is well nigh impossible to separate it once it's in the pipeline.  But that was then and this is now.  Two stories I came across today suggest that there are some out there that are working hard to differentiate between oil sources, as difficult as that sounds.

First, according to the Globe & Mail, Canada's federal government seems to be picking a fight with the European Union as the EU pushes European fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon footprint of supplied fuels over the next decade (see Oil sands row threatens EU trade deal, sources say, February 22, 2011). 

"Canada has threatened to scrap a trade deal with the European Union if the EU persists with plans that would block imports of Canada’s highly polluting tar sands, according to EU documents and sources .....The Commission had initially proposed that tar sands be ascribed a greenhouse gas value of 107 grams per megajoule of fuel, making it clear to buyers that it had far greater impact than average crude oil at 87.1 grams. The latest EU research, published this month, backs that up."

I'm not quite clear on why Canada would pick a fight over a product that the EU does not, and is unlikely to, import from Canada.  However, what interested me was the "certifying" of different oil sources ... an interesting precedence (and perhaps a reason for the disagreement).

Much more interesting was an article in GOOD magazine's Issue 022, The Energy Issue.  On a safari through the range of energy issues facing the U.S. today, GOOD slipped a short mention of David Poritz's Gaia Certification Ltd. and its efforts to establish a certification standard for oil sources.  According to GOOD, Poritz's goal is "Fair Trade" in fuels, that allows consumers to pick the the level of environmental performance that they are willing to pay for.  His model is the Forest Stewardship Council, which oversees standards for certifying woodlands and forest product producers.  You may have noticed companies like Home Depot selling FSC lumber or Staples selling FSC paper.

A quick look at the website suggests Gaia Certification is just getting started, and choosing to do so in Ecuador (where Chevron has become embroiled in lawsuits and accusations of systemic oil spills and pollution).  Drawing on participation from industry, NGO's, government and indigenous communities, Gaia is on the verge of issuing its first set of certification standards, which will serve as the basis for rating the practices of individual countries.

A summary of what Gaia is trying to achieve:

"The mission of Gaia Certification Ltd. is to create a market-driven process that will reward and distinguish world-class oil and gas producers for outstanding social and environmental performance through the active engagement of consumers, civil society, NGOs and the oil industry."

And Poritz is quoted by GOOD, outlining the value proposition for energy marketers as the world makes the transition to low-carbon fuels:

"There’s real market value here for energy producers, ...... It takes time to move to all renewables. We’re in transition, and that transition has to feel good."

It could be the start of something interesting - a first step towards extended product responsibility for the oil industry.  Forget Regular, Premium and Super, imagine going to your local boutique gasoline bar and having a choice of Fort McMurray Mild, Colorado Medium or, for the more discriminating the really good imported stuff, Ecuadorean Dark.

 

 

A List of Sustainability Lists in This Season of Lists

And yes it is a bit late in the New Year to be posting yet another take on the top 10.  But it was a busy Christmas season so here we go .....

I thought about putting together my own take on the Top 10 theme, you know, the 10 most important sustainability events for 2010, the 10 most important trends to watch for 2011 or maybe the 10 least sustainable politicians.  But the more I looked around at my favorite news and blog sites the harder it seemed to add anything that hadn't already been said.  Before I knew it I was putting together a list of all the top 10 (or five or 20, whatever) lists relating to sustainability, environment or clean tech investing.  What follows is a compilation of 23 lists that looked to be at least a bit relevant to this blog.  Enjoy!

To start, there are those basic lists that make sure we know what were the most important events from the year that has past.  In this category, the big stories of the year were undeniably BP's disasterous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. Senate's failure to do anything useful about climate change.  The runner up story was probably the general failure to advance climate policy and regulation almost anywhere. 

1. Vermont Law School’s Top 10 Environmental Watch List for 2011
2. NY Times Green Blog: An Untameable Spill, An Unpassable Bill
3. Grist's Top 10 Green Stories of 2010
4. Mongabay's Top 10 Environmental Stories of 2010
5. EWG's Worst Environmental Stories of 2010
6. EWG's Top 10 Good Environmental News Stories of 2010
7. The American Lung Association's Eleven Biggest Clean Air Events of 2010
8. Sustainability's Top Trends from 2010
9. The 10 Most Hopeful Green Business Stories of 2010 by Joel Makower at Greenbiz
10. Greenbiz's 20 Most Popular Stories of 2010

Sticking with a look at the year that has past, but focusing on climate change issues were the 10 Carbon Reporting Trends That Defined 2010 from Greenbiz and Grist's Top Five Stories of the Year for Climate Hawks.  Did Grist capture the essence of the year with their lead in to the Climate Hawks list: Well That Sucked?

New Years wouldn't be complete without someone making some predictions (or just wishes) - and this list of lists won't disappoint. 

1. Top 10 Trends in Sustainable Business
2. Five Cleantech Wishes for 2011
3. The Greentech Wish List for 2011

(Greenopolis sat on the fence, listing the Top 10 Environmental Success Stories together with 10 associated Future Challenges.)

There were the clean tech/green tech investment lists.

1. 10 Clean and Green Energy Stocks for 2011 from the Alt Energ yStocks blog
2. Five Top Sustainable Investment Stories of 2010
3. The 2010 Cleantech 10 by Corporate Knights
4. The Cleantech Next 10 also by Corporate Knights

And then there were a few lists that defy my categories so far.  Popular Mechanics got the jump on this whole end of year lists thing by publishing their Debunking the Top 10 Energy Myths back in July of last year.   Triple Pundit put together And The Top Ten Most "Sustainable" CEO's Are... - and no surprise here Yvon Chouinard takes first prize. 

And last but certainly not least is what was perhaps the most interesting list, put together by Mother Jones staffers baring their souls and presenting their 10 Green New Year's Resolutions.  How can you not root for Emma L. when she tells us she's committing to:

Actually composting the veggies that melt into mush in the bottom of the veggie drawer instead of holding the bag by one corner and putting it in the trash.  There is something about the grossness factor that just makes it hard to scrape them out of the bag...I compost everything else I should!

Enjoy!

Three Polls for Sustainability

Source: Signal Environmental

It was a busy summer and some things, like this blog, just couldn't keep up.  But that's not to say I didn't come across lots  I'd like to look back at as I try to get back in the habit of posting again.  Take the three polls I came across in early August (that's when I came across them, not necessarily when they were made public).

Back in June, Pembina Institute released a survey of 5,000 "thought leaders" (whatever the heck a thought leader is - I'm not sure that academics and government middle managers are leading many in their thinking these days).  The survey was conducted by McAllister Opinion Research and was released in advance of the G8/G20 meetings in Huntsville and Toronto, respectively.  Needless to say, with the uproar over fake lakes, $1 billion in security costs and riots in T.O., this survey sank without a trace. 

In the words of the press release ......

"The federal government is out of step with leading thinkers on issues related to sustainability, energy and climate change, according to the results of a groundbreaking survey of more than 5,000 experts and government officials  ....  These results clearly illustrate that leaders within government, academia and the private sector understand the energy and sustainability challenges Canada faces, and have a high level of agreement on how best to tackle them  ....  What Canada still lacks is the political commitment to take sufficient action."

Whats most interesting for me is that 59% of the respondents work in government (and most are in Canada), suggesting a profound disconnect between the Harper government and its civil servants on energy policy, climate change and sustainability.

Shifting direction (but just a bit), Gibbs and Soell, a New York based public affairs firm released their 2010 Sense and Sustainability Study, looking at how 2,600 U.S. consumers and 300 Fortune 1000 executives view the corporate pursuit of sustainability.   Scepticism is the key word Gibbs and Soell use to describe their own study.

Again in the words of the press release ...

Corporate America has embarked on its journey toward sustainability, but still draws public skepticism. Only 29% of executives and 16% of consumers believe that a majority of businesses (“most,” “almost all,” or “all”) are committed to “going green” – defined as “improving the health of the environment by implementing more sustainable business practices, and/or offering environmentally friendly products or services.” Many executives (54%) and consumers (48%) believe only “some” businesses are committed to “going green.”

However, I don't know if I would really define the response as sceptical.  If anything, it may be incredibly optimistic for 29% of executives to believe that "most", "almost all" or "all" U.S. companies are going green.  While the press release says that "Corporate America has embarked on its journey toward sustainability ...", as someone that makes a living helping companies down this particular road I would suggest that the majority of companies display the symptoms (e.g. publishing sustainability reports) but provide only tepid support beyond what the regulations require.

Finally, the last poll, conducted by Harris Poll for the Financial Times, looked at U.S. and European support for greater regulation of oil companies in the aftermath of the BP-Deepwater Horizon disaster.  The poll, released August 12^th, found that support for more regulation ranged from 73% of Britons to 91% of the French (U.S. respondents were in between with 77% of those spoken to favoring more regulatory constraints).

"The findings underline the challenge facing the industry after the accident on April 20 when the Macondo well ruptured, killing 11 workers and spewing 4.9m barrels of oil into the sea. Although the Obama Administration's moratorium on deep-water drilling in the gulf, imposed after the spill, should be lifted earlier than it's November 30th expiry date, the industry is already bracing itself for further regulation and higher costs"

So what does it all mean?

At a minimum, I would say there is a disconnect between industry claims to be "going green", becoming sustainable, etc. and the public that is on the receiving end of the message.  It also shows what bad performance on the part of one or two companies can do to the whole sector, and even all industry.  Looking at Canada and the Pembina/McAllister survey that disconnect extends to include a government and the thought leaders that are in many cases employed by it. 

Its been a tough summer for corporate reputations in the energy sector so it would be interesting to look at similar polls again in six months.

Off the Cliff: US Climate (Energy) Policy

The last few weeks have seen a slow train wreck as recent efforts to craft a climate/energy bill died in the U.S. Senate.  While the House was able to bring the bloated Waxman-Markey Bill forward a year ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week announced that he would not even try to bring forward a compromise bill to the Senate.  And since mid-term elections in November appear likely to favour the Republicans, that seems to translate into a death sentence for any kind coherent climate or energy legislation in the U.S. for a while to come.

The list of commentators weighing in on who is to blame is long, including:

• Andrew Revkin - The Broken Senate and the Energy and Climate Challenge (Dot Earth)
• David Roberts - The Death of the Climate Bill (Grist Magazine)
• Robert Redford - Its the Opportunity, Stupid (The Huffington Post)
• Bradford Plumer - No Climate Bill? Then No Nukes, Either. (The Vine/The New Republic)
• Eileen Claussen - Climate Bill: Where to From Here? (Climate Compass/Pew Center)

(And probably many, many more than I have the time to read.)

However, among the most detailed and coherent assessments is one provided by Eric Pooley, a deputy-editor at Bloomberg Business Week, writing at Yale's environment 360 blog (see The Wreckage of Climate Bill, Some Clues for Moving Forward, July 28^th).  Mr. Pooley identified 6 culprits worthy of blame, including:

1. Professional climate deniers
2. Senate Republicans
3. Senate Democrats
4. The (Electric) Power Barons
5. The Green Group (environmental NGO's)
6. President Obama.

The list of who to blame doesn't leave to many out (although, interestingly, he identifies Representative Henry Waxman and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as 'the only grown-ups in the room' during this debacle).

But perhaps the better part of Pooley's assessment is the consideration of options for Plan B - i.e. how does the U.S. move forward to address an issue (climate change) that is becoming ever more urgent.  Briefly, he looks to existing policy and institutions to lead the way - as they have indeed been doing for some years now. 

According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute, by leveraging existing authority over the next ten years the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent to 12 percent below 2005 levels. This is far short of the 17 percent reduction Obama promised in Copenhagen and nothing close to what needs to be done. But if we continue cutting emissions before asking voters to embrace a cap, we prove that cuts are both technologically feasible and economically sustainable. And we’ll be in a better position when the next legislative opportunity comes.

Until then, the climate war will be waged by cities, states, regional cap-and-trade programs, and, above all, the EPA, which early next year is set to begin regulating stationary sources of CO2 — power plants and large factories.

So in many respects, U.S. Climate policy and action may not look a lot different than it did under the leadership of George Bush.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement of President Obama's leadership on this file but a significantly better performance than we are seeing here in Canada where emissions steadily rise in the face of both federal and provincial unwillingness to act.

Pooley does point out the importance of the EPA going forward and the likelihood that Republican attacks will now shift to that agency. 

Tough new EPA rules for conventional pollutants will help, and so will new EPA carbon regulations. Perhaps these strict new regulations will refresh the power bosses’ appetite for a cap. But they have plenty of lawyers, and the long, ugly battles over implementation of EPA regulations could extend the current period of uncertainty by many years. Republicans (and some Democrats) will try to strip EPA of its authority over carbon, or at least delay implementation of its new rules.