Using Carbon Credits To Pay For Energy Retrofits

By Justin Gerdes

Forbes

9/25/12

One of the signal achievements of the Obama administration is a success hidden in plain view. Scorned by Republicans and rarely mentioned by Democrats, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), or simply “the stimulus,” was many things at once – tax cut, lifeline for cash-strapped states and local governments, and, as noted by Michael Grunwald in his important new book The New New Deal, “the biggest and most transformative energy bill in U.S. history.”

The stimulus directed $3.2 billion to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program. As I wrote at this blog in January and again in June, these grants have enabled dozens of California cities to slash their energy bills by investing in LED streetlights and other energy-saving upgrades.

The stimulus also included a one-time supplemental appropriation of $5 billion for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program. In December 2011, DOE announced it had reached its goal, three months ahead of schedule, of weatherizing 600,000 low-income homes nationwide. According to DOE data, as of January 2012, 612,390 homes or apartments had received energy retrofits courtesy of the stimulus.

Many states dramatically scaled up staffing and other resources to handle the surge of energy efficiency-related stimulus funding. What happens now that the ARRA spigot has run dry?

Weatherization and carbon trading

In a September 19 post at Home Energy magazine’s blog, Macie Melendez reported on a plan that could enable states to maintain their scaled up weatherization programs. A major topic of discussion at the recently convened annual conference of the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP), Melendez wrote, was how to keep weatherization programs relevant and funded in a post-ARRA world. Carbon markets just might be the answer.

One of the presenters at the NASCSP conference was the organization’s new Carbon Trading Project Director, Jo-Ann Choate. Melendez recounted Choate’s plan:

Weatherization reduces carbon but states/companies/organizations aren’t currently being monetarily rewarded for doing so. In order to leverage additional funding for WAP [Weatherization Assistance Program] and receive those ‘rewards,’ NASCSP is currently developing a national framework to measure carbon emission reductions from weatherization activities and sell carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon markets in compliance with the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS).

The NASCSP would verify, register, and sell carbon offsets for the participating states. After credits are sold in carbon markets, NASCSP would distribute the proceeds back to each state.

The plan is not without precedent. In December 2010, the Verified Carbon Standard approved the first new methodology for crediting reductions of greenhouse gases achieved through home weatherization. The methodology was developed by MaineHousing for the Efficiency Maine program. The operating assumption is that weatherized homes that perform better than a pre-determined benchmark are eligible for salable carbon credits.

The Maine program has been beset by controversy surrounding its cost and alleged conflict of interest among its key stakeholders, but many states are keen to press ahead. Melendez reported that 17 states have signed on to participate in NASCSP’s Carbon Trading Initiative.

Carbon metering

How confident can NASCSP or Verified Carbon Standard be that a weatherized home produces measurable energy and carbon savings? In search of an answer, I recently spoke with Mark Aschheim, Professor and Chair, Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University (SCU). Aschheim and Jorge Gonzalez, a former SCU mechanical engineering professor now at City College New York, co-lead a team that developed a carbon metering method that quantifies real-time energy savings in buildings and associated carbon offsets. The technology, Carbon Meter, was developed to measure the energy performance of Santa Clara University’s entries into the 2007 and 2009 Solar Decathlon.

One of the goals of the Carbon Meter, Aschheim told me, is to be able to measure the gap in performance of a house or commercial building performing to a baseline (say, California’s Title 24 building energy efficiency standards) and one going beyond it. Once you quantify that differential, he said, it opens up other possibilities, including salable carbon credits. The meter also quantifies the benefit of electricity generated by photovoltaic cells.

With the ability to measure real-time energy performance, Aschheim said, you can quickly develop a thermal model for how the building is performing – as a system, not just individual components. “That can be useful because you can verify that performance met the intention,” he said.

LEED and other green building rating programs are good on paper, Aschheim commented, but not so good with verification. “This is a way to field verify that you’re getting the performance you intended,” he said. “It might tie into guidance as to what the best retrofit options are – given that your house is performing this well and you have these kinds of windows and insulation, here’s the best bang for the buck.”

California regulators have approved four categories of carbon offsets in its soon-to-launch cap-and-trade program: forestry, urban forestry, ozone depleting substances, and agricultural methane. On September 17, Reuters reported on an American Carbon Registry study finding that California’s carbon market could be 29% short of offsets in its pilot phase (2013-2014) and 67% short of offsets in its third phase (2018-20), unless regulators expand the categories of approved offset project types.

At a minimum, the Carbon Meter represents for California regulators a potential new offset category: carbon savings from retrofits. Coupled with NASCSP’s Carbon Trading Initiative, the Carbon Meter presents California and other states with the means to generate a source of salable carbon offsets that could help keep weatherization programs alive.

Aschheim conceded that he and his team have focused more on the technical demands of the Carbon Meter project than financial returns. They filed both an invention disclosure and patent application but have not marketed the tool.

The Carbon Meter is listed at the Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing portal. (Stanford handles intellectual property for Santa Clara University, Aschheim told me.)

“It’s out there waiting to be grabbed and used,” he said. Entrepreneurs, get on it.

This article is available online at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/justingerdes/2012/09/25/using-carbon-credits-to-pay-for-energy-retrofits/

Sustainable Urban Energy for Dhaka City

by Md. Zahidur Rahman and Saeed Ahmed Siddiquee
October 5, 2012

Blitz

Our entire way of life and all of our economic projections relies on more energy. Howbeit, the world is now facing most serious challenge in energy supply which could be a more devastating crisis than world wars. Global energy depletion has already begun, although few countries have realized it. The peak energy affects the future of the entire global economy. Presently the energy producing resources like fossil fuel, gas, coal, and uranium has placed in peak position. It is predicted that those non-renewable energy is going to be declined position in every place of the earth.

Dominant consumption of non-renewable energy for electricity is leading to Green House Gasses (GHG) emission into the atmosphere. According to the International Energy Agency (2011), approximately 901 grammes of CO2 or equivalent are released per kilowatt hour of electricity that generated from coal. Presumably, global urban populations are principle responsible for GHG emissions due to the consumption of bulk amount of energy for the aristocratic lifestyle. While on the contrary, Renewable World stated that still 1.3 billion people in the world still live without access to electricity and 2.7 billion people have no access to clean cooking facilities. Admittedly, energy crisis will happen in future and then urban inhabitants will be more sufferer compare to rural people. In this situation, global economic wheel may be plummeted and thus leading to global inevitable poverty. Indeed, a concerning era has already arise in front of the global leaders to make them busy thinking alternatively about how to overcome this energy crisis?

At present, what is the overview of Bangladesh's energy situation? Currently, around 43% population belongs to electricity facilities with per capita consumption of 140 kilowatt hour. The electricity consumption rate has increased gradually due to the demand of overwhelmed growing population. Reported by the country power system Master Plan 2010, the forecasted demand would be 19,000 megawatt by the year 2021 and 34,000 megawatt by 2030. Till now majority of our energy come from non-renewable sources which are facing challenges in order to growing energy demand for mostly electricity generation. Presently, Bangladesh has 20.5 TFC recoverable natural gas reserve and 420 million tones of coal reserve. Noticeable gas fields are already facing multifaceted crisis for gas supply for electricity generation. For example, Sangu gas field has reduced the supply of gas from a well. In addition, day by day oil prices have increased in the global market schemes which lead to raise prices per unit cost of electricity.

Surprisingly, the capital city of Dhaka itself consumes almost 41.22% of the total generated electricity while the demand of electricity is approximately 12000 megawatt and only 5493 megawatt is on pipeline. Stated by DESA, the demand for power in Dhaka city has increased by around 10% a year. As the supply is not adequate to meet the demand in the city, so either we have to adopt it or think alternative path way to solve the power crisis. If we consider Thailand, we can see that almost 28% electricity comes from the renewable sources. Bangladesh also has plenty of renewable energy sources to innovate and mainstreaming it to the main grid.

In Dhaka city we have not enough wind speed for windmill, neither enough River current for hydroelectric power plant nor even any suitable peri-urban places for nuclear power station installation. Nuclear power plant might be a suitable option for bulk amount of power generation and also it has no carbon emission but it is supposed to be risky in terms of earthquake frequency. Surprisingly, Dhaka is situated in the solar radiation receiving zone on the earth with almost 335 sunny days a year. Hence, solar photovoltaic energy generation is the best option for Dhaka city to face the present energy crisis.

According to CDMP's Urban Risk Reduction Specialists, there are 3,26,000 (appx.) buildings in Dhaka City. If we consider introducing a 5m² solar panel for each building, it might produce about 222 megawatt (5*136W*326000) electricity. Another expert from the same domain said that, we have almost 20000 shopping malls in Dhaka city and where we could introduce renewable energy for electricity generation. Furthermore, the growing real estate companies could also use environment favorable architectural design like Council Building-2 (Solar energy capturing building) in Melbourne where produce a substantial amount of electricity locally for every building. Apart from this, solar technology also reduce GHG emission rate by absorbing around 20% solar radiations that might balance the inner city heat. Cutting down of existing load shading, long term health and financial benefits are also might be ensured and even people could get installation cost back within three years.

From renewable energy sources, Bangladesh government has set a target to meet 5% by the year 2015 and 10% by 2020 of total power demand (RENDEV). However, our government has already been taken some effective initiative for enhancing efficiency of electricity through energy saving distribution within urban communities. Bangladesh has an extensive renewable energy policy. Few governmental offices, institutions and common places are now being implemented solar power installation for the purpose of alternative power generation.

Energy is one o f the most important ingredients required to alleviate poverty, realize socio-economic and human development. Energy returned on energy invested, banning of profligate users, increase people awareness, policy implementation, generation of individual or household level options, community or private sector initiative along with investment, zero interest bank loans for renewable energy and enforcement of law and order situation are required to overcome the present condition. Furthermore, we need feasibility study of those technologies aiming to adopt suitable technology for electricity production from renewable resources. For an instance close your eyes and think, what will be the situation without or insufficient electricity supply of Dhaka? Completely become dead city!

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/2626/sustainable-urban-energy-for-dhaka-city

United Kingdom : GE s Gas Engine CHP Systems Set to Power London 2012 Olympic Games

Power Industry News (press release)

Two new energy centers in London s Stratford City and Kings Yard areas are ready to supply 10 megawatts (MW) of efficient power, heating and cooling for the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games as well as East London s businesses and residential areas after the Games conclude. Three of GE s (NYSE: GE) 3.3-MW ecomagination-qualified Jenbacher J620 cogeneration units are powering the energy centers and generating electricity equivalent to the amount used by 24,000 average U.K. homes.

The energy center initiative is a cornerstone of London 2012 s plan to increase the use of alternative energy, water conservation and recycling to minimize the environmental impact of the Games. The London Olympic Delivery Authority built the facilities to help reach its target of a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions while meeting the city s power needs that are expected to surge as more than 15,000 athletes and millions of spectators arrive for the Games.

The energy centers are designed to operate in combined cooling, heat and power or trigeneration mode to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Chilled water is generated by absorption chillers using the high-temperature heat available from the exhaust of the unit. Combined heat and power (CHP) technologies are more efficient than using separate electrical and thermal power systems and thus helps to reduce emissions from power generation. By using this technology, about 13,000 tons of CO2 savings can be achieved. This amount of greenhouse gas emission savings is equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions emitted by about 6,500 European Union (EU) passenger cars.

Our energy centers powered by GE s gas engines are not only crucial to the success of the London 2012 Olympic Games but also for the goal of establishing a more sustainable business and residential environment throughout the city long after the Games have ended, said Simon Wright, director of infrastructure and utilities for the Olympic Delivery Authority. The Stratford City and Kings Yard energy centers are expected to support future commercial development in East London for at least 40 years.

The first energy center, featuring two of GE s J620 natural gas cogeneration modules, is located in the Stratford City development area and will support various Olympic Park activities as well as commercial redevelopment in East London.

The second energy center, located at Kings Yard on the western end of Olympic Park, features one J620 cogeneration system that will generate thermal power for the aquatics center s swimming pools and other venues via the Olympic Park s district heating network. The Kings Yard facility also will generate electrical and thermal power for other venues, homes and buildings in the area. Both energy centers will include boilers that use natural gas as feedstock to generate additional heat to meet peak demands.

http://www.utilityproducts.com/news/2012/07/26/united-kingdom-ge-s-gas-engine-chp-systems-set-to-power-london-2012-olympic-games.html

New Research Finds Urban Form Plays Little Role in Sustainability

Nate Berg

The Atlantic 

One need not look far to find a passionate argument that the compact city is the green city. Having more people in a smaller area results in less energy use for transportation purposes, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and greater efficiencies in the use of various resources. Cramming more people into a smaller space makes our cities more sustainable. Or does it? New research published in the spring issue of the Journal of the American Planning Association finds that – unlike today's dominant narrative of the green city – urban form may actually have very little impact on energy use and other measures of sustainability.

Researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Newcastle, and Leeds looked at three English metropolitan areas of various sizes and ran them through computer models that imposed three different urban forms over the course of 30 years. Each area was modeled as a hyper-dense city with tight restrictions on land use, an urban growth boundary and prioritized transit development, a sprawling, market-driven urban form that had few restrictions on land use, and a middle ground based on English new towns, or those planned suburban-style developments on the outskirts of larger cities. Each urban form – compaction, dispersal, expansion – was modeled on the three areas between the years 2001 and 2031 and evaluated on the basis on 26 different measures of sustainability – from pollution levels to degradation of water systems to the energy consumption of buildings and people. The models showed only very slight differences between the three urban forms.

"To our surprise, if you compare the compact form versus the current trend, the difference in reduced transport by automobile is very minor. And if you allow the city to expand, the increase in the use of the car is only marginal," says Marcial Echenique, a professor at the University of Cambridge Department of Architecture and one of the authors of the report. "If you make the city more compact, it doesn't mean that people will abandon their car. Only 5 percent of people abandon the use of the car. Ninety-five percent carries on using the car, which means there are more cars on the same streets, therefore there is much more congestion and therefore there is much more pollution and no great increase in the reduction of energy."

Echenique says he and his team have been working on this research for about 4 or 5 years, and continued modeling and analysis has only backed up their findings.

"We are not very convinced of the idea that compacting cities will make very much difference in terms of environmental quality. But it will have severe consequences in terms of economics and social issues," Echenique says.

Of particular concern for these researchers is that restricting development to only high-density, urban locations could greatly increase the cost of land and housing, causing both the cost of living and the cost of doing businesses to skyrocket. Echenique worries this will cause cities to become less competitive over the long term.

In terms of reducing the environmental impacts of human development and lifestyle, Echenique says his numbers indicate that we might be better off focusing our effort on improving technology and energy efficiency. He says we'll have a much better chance of reducing the negative impacts of modern living by focusing on automobile technology and reduced energy usage in buildings. He and his team are currently working on research on the effectiveness of focusing on the technology side. Results are expected to publish later this year.

Echenique argues and his research indicates that greater gains can be achieved by making more efficient cars or better insulation for buildings than by trying to reshape the urban landscape."We believe that we can reduce by 50 percent or more the use of energy in a fairly short time, within the next 20 years or so," he says. "It's much more effective than compacting or dispersing cities, because there's only a five percent difference either way."

"Technology offers a much better future than trying to constrain behavior of the market," he says.

The result of this work will likely be somewhat frustrating for urban boosters arguing for an increased emphasis on density and city living. Echenique recognizes that urbanization is underway, especially in developing countries, and that density will likely be the development paradigm in many of these places. But he also observes that urbanization is happening on a metropolitan scale, and that means development is occurring at a variety of densities within a region. Valuing one over the others as the sustainable model is unwise, he argues. He says this research shows that creating sustainable places has little to do with what they look like and far more to do with their energy use.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/07/new-research-finds-urban-form-plays-little-role-sustainability/2680/

PG&E to end carbon offset plan after few sign on

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, November 11, 2011

Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s ClimateSmart program, which lets the utility's customers go "carbon neutral" for a price, will close at the end of the year after signing up far fewer people than expected.

Begun in 2007, ClimateSmart gives participants a way to offset greenhouse gas emissions from the power plants that supply their electricity.

PG&E customers who joined the program pay a little extra on their monthly bills - about $3.30 for a typical homeowner. PG&E uses the money to fund projects that fight the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as preserving forests from logging or capturing methane from cow manure.

But the program attracted just a fraction of the roughly 168,000 customers that PG&E predicted. Enrollment peaked in 2008 at just under 31,000. By the end of last year, it had slipped to 29,623.

ClimateSmart was created as a three-year experiment, and California energy regulators extended it until the end of this year despite concerns about weak participation. PG&E did not seek a second extension, said company spokeswoman Katie Romans.

The program, she said, accomplished its most important goal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1.3 million metric tons. Participants contributed a total of about $10 million over four years, she said.

"It was a demonstration program, and it's successfully concluding after meeting its goals," Romans said. "Certainly we would have loved for more customers to have participated."
Those who did will receive a notice in their November utility bills thanking them for joining the program. The company also posted a notice on its website last week saying the program will end this year.

For much of its brief history, ClimateSmart was dogged by criticism that it wasted PG&E customers' money. Although participation in the program was voluntary, all of the utility's customers paid for its administrative and marketing costs, which totaled $16.3 million for the entire four-year run.

Critics also questioned whether the money coming from participants actually made a difference.

A report this year by the nonprofit news organization California Watch argued that some of the forest projects funded by ClimateSmart had already received taxpayer money from the state government, meaning PG&E customers paid twice for the same forests. PG&E insisted that the money from ClimateSmart helped save more trees and sequester more carbon dioxide than would the state funding alone.

In addition, under rules imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission, PG&E was obliged to hit the program's target of cutting greenhouse gases by 1.3 million metric tons even if the money collected from participants wasn't enough to reach that goal. Any shortfall would have to be covered by PG&E shareholders, said Matt Freedman, staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network. So contributions from ClimateSmart participants merely reduced the amount of money PG&E itself would have to spend on greenhouse gas reductions, he said.

"We're not opposed to giving customers choices that will improve their environmental footprint," Freedman said. "But you have to look very carefully at what's being offered to see if it will make a meaningful difference."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/11/BUPR1LTB45.DTL

In Auto Test in Europe, Meter Ticks Off Miles, and Fee to Driver

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

New York Times

Published: August 10, 2011

EINDHOVEN, the Netherlands — As Sander Van Dedem recalled watching the charges tick up every 10 seconds on the dashboard meter on the way to the airport, he resolved to try public transportation next time.  “Looking at the money makes you realize that a car isn’t always a good idea,” said Mr. Van Dedem, a commercial sales manager for I.B.M. here.

But his pricey ride was not in a taxi. He was driving his own Volvo XC60.

The car had been outfitted with the meter so that Mr. Van Dedem could take part in a trial of a controversial government tax proposal to charge drivers a fee for the miles they drive. The meter also factors in the cost to society in the form of pollution, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and wear and tear on roads.

Hooked up to the Internet wirelessly and to GPS, the system tabulates a charge for each car trip by using a mileage-based formula that also takes account of a car’s fuel efficiency, the time of day and the route. (Driving on busier thoroughfares costs more than driving on less-traveled roads.) At the end of each month, the vehicle’s owner would receive a bill detailing times and costs of usage, not unlike a cellphone bill, although participants in the trial did not have to pay the charges.

Governments in car-clogged regions of Europe, Asia and even the United States have shown an eagerness to explore such systems, but they face a nagging challenge in placing them in private vehicles. Even in environmentally conscious places like the Netherlands, voters and politicians often vehemently oppose the programs, citing privacy concerns about the monitoring of drivers’ whereabouts and the introduction of what amounts to a new type of tax.

In the Netherlands, where by some accounts residents have the highest average commuting time in Europe and a reputation for receptivity to environmental innovation, the government had planned to institute a nationwide system next year.  But the plan was shelved when a new government came to power in 2010.

“The winning party said, ‘If you elect us, there won’t be new taxes,’ and killed the plan,” said Ab Oosting, a city official in Eindhoven. 

Supporters of the meters contend that the charges are more equitable than current taxes like automobile purchase and registration fees, because they derive from actual use rather than mere ownership. If imposed, they could supplant gas and vehicle taxes as well as tolls. Governments could program  computers to require consistent gas guzzlers to pay higher rates, for example. 

Distance charging also provides a means of replacing declining revenues from gasoline taxes as more people drive highly efficient, hybrid or electric cars, helping governments that have traditionally depended on gas taxes for road upkeep. 

Equally important, studies have found that the meters provide instantaneous negative feedback, the kind that psychologists say changes behavior.

“At the beginning you’re looking at it all the time and thinking of costs, and pretty quickly it starts to influence what you do,” said Mr. Van Dedem, whose rush-hour airport ride would have incurred a charge of just over $5 under the rates proposed in the Netherlands.

The effect has been lasting: even though the trial was two years ago and the meter has been removed, he now works from home more in the mornings and walks to the market, he said.

In Europe, countries like Germany and Denmark “were looking to the Netherlands to test the technology” and were disappointed when the plan was shelved, said Peder Jensen, a transportation expert at the European Environment Agency. Germany has already started using a GPS-based charging system for trucks, and France is planning to do so, a step that is less politically volatile than charging drivers of private cars.

In the United States, states including Oregon, Texas and Minnesota have explored mileage charging systems, but the first tentative proposals have faced obstacles there as well. A longstanding proposal in Oregon to introduce such charging for electric cars stalled in committee this spring and never made it to a vote. It suggested a transitional rate of 0.85 cents per mile in 2015 and 1.85 cents per mile by 2018. 

Although the program was primarily an attempt to recoup lost revenue from gasoline taxes, it was also intended to test the waters for distance charging that would eventually apply to all cars.

“We started with a new type of car where the policy argument was clear: electric vehicles don’t pay gas taxes,” said James M. Whitty, manager of Oregon’s Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding. “But the idea was to get by the anxiety about what the new tax system was about, to see if it would be acceptable.”

The Oregon proposal did not envisage installing real-time GPS-based meters in each car, but merely recording the mileage though the odometer. An earlier trial using a GPS unit had stirred a public outcry even though the unit did not reveal locations as it relayed data to the state.  “The public didn’t trust that,” Mr. Whitty said.

Eric-Mark Huitema, a transportation specialist with I.B.M., which developed the system used in the Netherlands in collaboration with the semiconductor company NXP, said that the hardware and software performed well in the testing period.  

“The trials work well, but it’s first a psychological issue and second a political choice,” he said. “To do it you need support of the government, and it needs to happen when there is not an election because there’s always a bit of resistance.”

Under the shelved plan in the Netherlands, rates would have varied from 4.5 to 45 cents per mile. Government studies predicted that 60 or 70 percent of drivers would pay less than under the current system of car taxation.

The European Union continues to prod member states to try distance charging despite the setbacks. High car and gas taxes have failed to stem the growth of car use in Western Europe, leaving densely populated countries paralyzed at rush hour.

Belgium plans to start a small trial of 50 drivers in September. “Traffic jams are expected to double by 2020; the roads are full, full, full,” said Freidl Maertens, director of the pilot program in Leuven, Belgium. Singapore is also contemplating a mileage-based tax system, though so far the plans do not include a digital display, which some experts see as a crucial component.

According to data collected in the Eindhoven trial, watching the small charges add up changed driving habits.

“Seeing the meter helps,” Mr. Huitema said. “The old taxes don’t do that — you fill the tank, pay and try not to worry anymore.”

A version of this article appeared in print on August 11, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In Auto Test in Europe, Meter Ticks Off Miles, and Fee to Driver.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/science/earth/11meter.html?ref=science

San Francisco airport opens "Climate Passport" kiosks

By Mike Rosenberg
Contra Costa Times
San Francisco International Airport passengers can now help reverse the damage their flight inflicts on the environment by paying a fee that will help fund reforestation projects.

The voluntary program for travelers unveiled Thursday is, according to involved parties, the first of its kind among U.S. airports. The airport spent $190,000 to install three "Climate Passport" kiosks past security checkpoints, one in domestic Terminal 3 and two more in the International Terminal.

Paying at the kiosks, or online at the airport's Web site, is relatively simple. Travelers enter their flight's origin and destination, their number of passengers and whether they plan to fly round-trip. The machine then calculates a fee that can be paid via credit card to counteract the carbon emissions spewed into the atmosphere during their trip.

The kiosk shows how many pounds of carbon dioxide each passenger is responsible for, then charges $16.50 per ton of emissions. For example, a passenger flying round-trip from San Francisco to John F. Kennedy Airport in New York would be responsible for offsetting 3,824 pounds of carbon dioxide at a cost of $23.42. A one-way trip to Los Angeles International Airport, meanwhile, would cost only $1.75 per person.

For every $16.50 collected, $15 goes toward reforestation efforts to suck up carbon dioxide at the 23,780-acre Garcia River Forest in Mendocino County, Calif., and $1.50 helps fund San Francisco green initiatives.

Since the program is unprecedented, officials from the airport and 3Degrees, the San Francisco-based company operating the system, say they have no idea how popular it will be.

As airlines continue to raise ticket prices and charge fees for checked bags and even amenities such as pillows, the success of the program may be limited.

Steve McDougal, a 3Degrees vice president, admits the program should mostly appeal to those who "feel empowered to doing something bigger," not passengers who feel guilty about their flight's impact on climate change.

"You ask somebody to stop and pay some additional money, I realize that's challenging," said McDougal, adding the purchases are not tax-deductible. "The knee-jerk reaction on this is from skeptics."

Deputy Airport Director Kandance Bender said the airport anticipates the kiosks will take a while to catch on. The airport will monitor purchases made at the machines and online monthly, she said.

McDougal said there is a third-party monitoring process in place to ensure the money goes toward CO2-reducing projects, adding that the airport and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom have staked their integrity behind the program.

3Degrees uses a standard brought forth by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for calculating the average amount of carbon emissions per mile on commercial flights, McDougal said.

Most of the money then goes toward ongoing projects to restore the heavily-cut Garcia River Forest, which is along the Northern California coast and consists mostly of redwood trees. The carbon offsets should have a real impact, as each acre of the Garcia River Forest absorbs three tons of carbon dioxide per year, said Chris Kelly, California program director of the Conservation Fund, the nonprofit that owns and manages the forest.

The remaining money is given to a San Francisco green program that thus far has helped fund a biodiesel business and tree plantings in the city, said Johanna Gregory Partin, Newsom's director of climate protection initiatives.

"Even though the economy's tough right now, we're still seeing people who want to do the right thing," Partin said.

The carbon kiosks follow the January launch of the nation's first green rental car program, in which San Francisco travelers receive $15 discounts for renting hybrid vehicles.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2009894857_webairportenvirofee18.html

cnn.com

7/20/09

Can computer software account for climate change?

• Story Highlights
• Greenhouse gas emissions software designed to track and then reduce GHGs
  
• Microsoft developed online tool for cities; many more designed for businesses
  
• Worldwide over 3,000 businesses use carbon accounting software; number to rise
  
• Being able to quantify emissions will lead to more effective action say analysts
  

By Dean Irvine
CNN

(CNN) -- Microsoft had trouble solving the problems with its Vista operating system, so what are its chances of fixing climate change?

The global software firm has created an online tool called Project 2 Degrees for cities across the world to monitor their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, the hope is, then do something about them.

While Bill Gates' company have tailored an online carbon accounting tool for cities, businesses are increasingly turning on to the benefits and need to track their own GHGs, opening up an area for enterprise software companies to provide the best tools for the job.

"A lot of companies are worried and interested in carbon accounting, but don't necessarily feel an urgency to adopt it. But there is enough regulation in the pipeline, certainly in the U.S., that makes it look real and coming in a couple of years," said Scott Clavenna of Greentech Media.

"It will go from a niche of a couple of hundred companies using this kind of software right now to thousands."

The call for more carbon accounting doesn't have any emotive ad campaigns or Hollywood celebrity-backing, instead it uses cold hard data to track emissions and empower those responsible to try and reduce them.

Cities account for only 2 percent of the worlds land mass but produce up to 75 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, so became the focus for Project 2 Degrees that is a collaboration with software designers Autodesk and the Clinton Climate Initiative.

"This is a long journey for our governments, be they local or national, but we could have the biggest impact by working with local governments as they have the ability to measure what's happening locally in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and to have an effect on the local economy and the local environment first," Matt Miszewski, Microsoft's general manager for Worldwide E-government, told CNN.

Being one of the world's richest and most profitable companies, Microsoft offers it's online GHG accounting tool for free but says Miszewski, it goes further than that.

"We want to show how software can help solve some very difficult issues. A great deal of the importance of this project is to be able to share this information from city to city, region to region," he said.

The first cities that will be comparing their CO2 high scores come from the 56 cities associated with the inaptly named C40 group that is in partnership with the Clinton Climate Initiative. New York and Sydney were heavily involved in beta testing of Project 2 Degrees that started last year, and once more results are in it will be offered to around 1,000 other cities.

"It is eye opening to be able to chart actual emissions against targets to see the quantum of emissions reductions required. Typically these figures are not so readily accessed and this will be a major benefit of Project 2 Degrees," a spokesperson for Sydney's local government told CNN.

Who accounts for what?

Even if the tool is working as well as possible, it seems more needs to be done by businesses and cities to accurately collect and measure GHG emissions.

"Higher level guidance should come in the form of advising what emissions to report and provision of data where possible, however each city needs to take responsibility for the emissions it creates," a spokesperson for Sydney told CNN.

Knowing what needs to be reported is a challenge that is being met. The World Resources Institute's Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the most widely used international accounting tool for both governments and businesses, covering the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

"The World Resources Institute has done a really good job in defining the protocols in the data gathering. What do you gather from where and how do you report it? Now everyone is starting to compare apples to apples," Clavenna told CNN.

It could be a boom area for carbon accounting software developers. As well as numerous start-ups the big players including Microsoft's non-altruistic arm and SAP have begun their own programs aimed at businesses.

"The stakes are high for enterprise software," said Clavenna. "The big players are not aggressively marketing yet, but getting ready to come out with a big product when their customers need it."

Over 200 companies are developing accounting software, according to research by Greentech Media, and over 3,000 businesses are using their products to track their GHG emissions. Big corporations including Dell, Xerox and Pfizer have all been early adopters stretching back to 2002.

Limited carbon emissions regulations, such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and at state level in the U.S., are in place, and a number of international voluntary programs also exist. Yet most of the early-adopter businesses are responding to public pressure for them to be environmentally-aware and shareholder requests for their business to be greener.

"There have been some light triggers -- stakeholder requests, even in HR, young people asking for proof that their company is green. In a down economy a company can choose to put them aside or table them for a while," said Clavenna.

But more significant factors are on the horizon: "The big triggers are a cap and trade regime, which [in the U.S.] would come through congress and set by the EPA who will say which companies need to report and what they need to report," said Clavenna.

A cap and trade program would mean thousands more companies would have to account for and report their GHG emissions as a market is created to trade excess CO2.

Strict accounting of emissions can also be a means to beat some corporate 'greenwashing', particularly in terms of companies making claims over their carbon footprints.

Ultimately however it is about reducing those footprints and aiming to limit global warming to only 2 degrees Celsius.

"There is a market out there for software that manages cap and trade, both from an intergovernmental aspect and a commercial aspect. Copenhagen will be a tipping point for those kinds of activity to move forward world wide. These folks are going to have an increased responsibility," said Miszewski.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/13/eco.carbon.accounting/

Calculating footprint often uses fuzzy math

Results vary, but give idea of environmental impact

By Tim De Chant | Chicago Tribune reporter

August 10, 2008

Frank Bentley's life changed seven years ago when he took an Internet survey that estimated his annual share of greenhouse gas emissions.

Bentley, then a college student, entered information about his lifestyle into an online calculator, which spit back a number showing how much he might be contributing to climate change—his "carbon footprint." Now the Palatine resident constantly tailors his habits to minimize that number, including living close to work, biking and using public transportation when possible, and eliminating meat from his diet.

But he also encountered a common problem that is seldom advertised—there's no single, universally accepted way of calculating someone's carbon footprint. Dozens of carbon calculators have sprung up on the Internet in the last few years, but they use different assumptions and can yield wildly varying estimates.

Many factors to calculate

The calculators help raise awareness, but "the downside is that the methodology is being worked on as we speak," said Daniel Kammen, a professor in the energy and resources group at the University of California at Berkeley who is senior energy and environment adviser to Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

Consumers try to cut through the confusion the best they can. When Bentley steps on various carbon scales with the goal of trimming more emissions from his lifestyle, the results can vary by as much as 10 tons of carbon output. Usually he averages several results to assess his true footprint.

"You can play with those numbers and see how it affects the outcome," said Bentley, a senior researcher for Motorola. "I'll take a couple and just see what the average is."

Understanding how the footprint estimates are reached may be the best way for people to make good choices about modifying their behavior, experts say. An accurate estimate includes a wide range of factors because nearly every aspect of modern life contributes to a person's carbon footprint. Carbon dioxide from transportation and the generation of electricity is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but calculators also account for methane, nitrous oxide, fluorocarbon refrigerants and others. 

The calculators' disparate results stem from their conflicting assumptions. Some surveys determine a footprint from a few general questions, like household size or number of plane flights per year, while others delve deeper.

"One that had 100 questions, that was my favorite," Bentley said. 

Flying leaves big print

Much of the variation lies in the assessment of air travel, which is one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions for a typical middle-class American. While many calculators tally miles flown, some do not include the number of legs for each flight, which can throw off the results.  "Shorter flights have higher emissions per flight because most of the emissions occur during takeoff," said Christopher Jones, developer of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment's carbon calculator.  Jet engines also produce water vapor, which at high altitudes is a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas. Including water vapor in calculations can "more than double emissions," Jones said.

Despite the differing approaches, scientists still find carbon calculators useful. After all, even if the tool is not perfectly accurate, people who consistently use it to track and modify their behavior will see their footprint shrink.   Michele Hallett of Chicago said when she first stumbled upon carbon calculators a year ago, "the thing that stood out to me most was that airplane travel was a huge carbon dumper."  The tools inspired Hallett to take a couple of trips by train instead. When she couldn't fit a train ride into her schedule, she flew the first leg and returned by train to cut the carbon in half.

Hallett's brother and sister-in-law, Mark Hallett and Carmen Vidal-Hallett, have altered many of their daily routines to minimize their footprints. The three, who live in the same household, commute by bike when possible and grow tomatoes and herbs in their backyard garden, which reduces their reliance on produce that's been transported in carbon dioxide-emitting trucks.

Farm to freezer

Food can play a large role in a person's carbon footprint. Cows are notorious for their methane emissions, but feeding them also requires fuel and energy. A University of Chicago study found switching from a diet laden with red meat to a vegetarian one can lower a carbon footprint by nearly 1.5 tons.  Thorough calculators like Jones' can help identify hidden carbon sources like those in the food supply chain or the transportation system. They take a cradle-to-grave approach, tallying everything related to an individual's consumption.

For example, Jones' calculator will count not only tailpipe emissions from driving, but also those from a vehicle's manufacture. Most calculators are comparatively simple, counting only driving emissions.  Carbon calculators have grown in popularity as awareness about climate change swells. Many appear on Web sites that offer to offset visitors' carbon emissions for a price. Americans paid $54 million last year to assuage their global warming guilt, and Kammen expects that amount to surge past $250 million this year.

Buying smaller print

Carbon offset programs work by investing money in enterprises that will either reduce the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere or capture and store existing carbon, but the efficacy of the various options is hotly debated.   In addition, the less scrupulous offset brokers will sell carbon credits multiple times, defeating the purpose. Users should read the company's Web site to see if its programs undergo independent audits. 

U.S.-based carbon offset companies charge anywhere from $5 to $29 per metric ton (about 1.1 tons) of carbon. While Kammen said he expects the price to rise over time, his lab found $30 per metric ton to be an appropriate amount.  The other way to trim tons is through lifestyle changes. Carbon calculators can help consumers identify the small steps that are the easiest—and cheapest—to take, such as turning down water heaters and installing compact fluorescent light bulbs. Driving less is also a straightforward and increasingly cost-effective measure.

Taking it to the next level, however, can be daunting. Despite Bentley's efforts, his footprint remains a few tons higher than the American average of 22 tons—thanks mostly to air travel, which now represents 70 percent of his carbon emissions.  "I've done a lot to reduce carbon in every other area of my life," Bentley said. "But air transportation is one thing I really can't cut back on."