Promoting What Works

It is very likely that environmentalists are taking a losing approach to winning minds and hearts, and that they are only off by a few degrees on the compass. What if instead of talking about how much we needed to reduce or cut back our use/consumption/dependence/etc., the message was instead in terms of what was possible to achieve?

The EPA Smart Way program is, at first glance, another ho-hum government program. It is designed to protect the environment, but who really cares?

Smart Way is a program designed to reduce the consumption of carbon fuels (oil) by the transportation industry. The program has connections to all areas of the transportation industry: shippers, carriers, logistics, affiliates (truck dealerships, non-profits), and truck stops. Smart Way identifies products and practices that will reduce the oil consumed through the trucking of goods to and from locations across the country. Then it rates partners on a scale based on how well they are doing at reducing their oil consumption. Mere participation in the program, even at the lowest possible rating, means that a partner is probably performing better than organizations that do not participate.

At its worst, Smart Way is projected to reduce use of diesel fuel by 3.3 billion gallons.

3.3 billion gallons!

In the low end of the projection.

Smart Way is an effective public-private partnership that is actually working to reduce our dependence on non-renewable fuels and increase our environmental sustainability.

Sometimes in the shift towards sustainability, it is easy to become discouraged and wonder if there would ever be enough that we could do to really make a difference. What if the problems are just too large and too complicated to address before the proverbial point of no return? In programs like Smart Way, we can see that this despair is just not justified. In fact, promoting the promise of simple programs like Smart Way is an effective strategy for environmental advocates to pursue.

So while it might be true that we need to reduce our oil consumption X number of gallons by a certain year. That "X", whatever it is, is going to be a huge number. A daunting number. And we intuitively think of it as a negative number. In other words, when someone says, "Reduce by X number of gallons" and the mind of the listener thinks in terms of decrease. Of taking something away. When environmentalists say to decrease your use of [fill in the blank], we immediately think of what we are going to loose.

But what if we were to talk about what it is possible for us to achieve? Well that changes everything. Suddenly we aren't talking about what we loose, we're talking about what we can accomplish. It is subtle, it is even possibly subversive. But it is also effective.

Doomsday preachers attract a minimal crowd. But, leaders and innovators move entire nations toward better things. It is time to focus on the positive results that efforts towards sustainability can achieve. We've heard enough about what we cannot do. It is time to talk about what we can do.

Quick Hits

Short post today.

This is an example of a relatively simple and effective method for getting people to reduce their energy consumption. Easy to understand information will be critical to trying to motivate a consumer movement towards sustainability.

Also, check out Google's similar Powermeter program.

And for a more in-depth discussion of using the natural tendencies of human nature to create more positive outcomes, check out "Nudge" by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

A Chill Pill On Global Warming

It is usually a pity when environmental issues get political. But because they do some analysis on political strategy is due. Climate change legislation has stalled out in Congress. It has come some of the way, but it is far from a finalized piece of legislation with the votes to pass. This has left the Obama administration in a bit of a bind when it comes to the negotiation of an international climate change treaty (scheduled to culminate in Copenhagen in December). The goal of reducing U.S. GHG emissions is well beyond the scope of the executive office alone. So, Obama finds himself in need of the Congress and a climate change bill. The president's political capital is strong, but he is spread thin because of the persistent health care reform issue.

While a strong stance by the U.S. would go a long way towards changing the current state of affairs, the prospect of a meaningful deal at Copenhagen remains bleak. With such disappointment looming, environmentalists should now begin to realize their doomsday-all-or-nothing strategy for an agreement was a poor strategy to adopt. While it is true that climate change is the single largest environmental issue of our time, Copenhagen surely does not represent the last and only chance for concerned persons to change the course of GHG emissions. It has been popular to propagate this idea. In some ways, this strategy makes sense. If you could create enough urgency, you might get something done. But like any attempt to scare people into action, it risks shooting itself in the foot if people aren't scared enough (read: if no deal is reached by Copenhagen).

A strategy to scare people into achieving an agreement at Copenhagen relies on making people believe it all has to happen at that meeting and that if it doesn't, then you've missed your chance to do anything meaningful. Following the logic of that message would mean if Copenhagen comes and goes without an agreement, then we all might as well find something else to do while we wait for the melted Arctic to end up in our backyard. But no environmentalist, sustainability enthusiast, or concerned citizen would seriously suggest that a failure at Copenhagen means all other attempts are in vain. It is admirable to try and put pressure on leaders to come to an agreement, but it has been foolish to engage in do-or-die messaging in order to apply that pressure.

We need action as soon as possible on climate change and GHG emissions. Talking about Copenhagen as if it is humanity's last hope is reckless and has more potential to backfire than to benefit the effort.

Looking Ahead

It is difficult, impossible even, to predict the future outcome of our current actions. So much depends on the unknowns in life. But with reasonable certainty, we can say that years from now we will be thankful that we took up the challenge of achieving environmental sustainability. Barring unforeseen events, the good Lord willing, we will get there. When is still unknown, so is the cost. As a general rule, the costs are at their lowest today, and prices are going up. When we do achieve sustainability, even if we achieve it in the aftermath of severe climate-induced changes in our global makeup, we will do so on the efforts and the determination of those who worked before us, on the enthusiasm of the current batch of sustainability proponents, and on the follow through of the upcoming generation.

We will be thankful for investments like these, whether or not we remember that some of the money came from government. Blended investments, like these in smart grid technologies, take advantage of the best that both government and the private sector have to offer. Each dollar the government is spending on these smart grid investments is matched by at least one private sector dollar. It will take both sides, not at odds nearly as often as they pretend to be sometimes, working together to transition to smarter energy delivery and usage.

It should be all hands on deck for the shift to sustainability. Both sides, government and private industry, should stop shouting at the other to get out of the way. Neither government nor private firms will make the transition to sustainability all on their own. The list of government tasks: proper carbon pricing, pollution regulation, land preservation, and international negotiation to name a few, is full of critical issues. The tasks of private enterprise: innovation, responsible environmental planning, and adopting the principles of sustainability, cannot be assumed or forced by government if sustainability is to be realized.

Both sides need each other and it is refreshing when they can work so well together.

Accounting Irregularities

The scientific and policy making communities are coming out with an adjustment to their calculation of the carbon impact of biofuels. It is a move that is worthwhile and necessary, but it also exposes something not so flattering about the way we sometimes approach sustainability.

In a recently published article in the journal Science, leaders in the effort against global climate change are proposing an adjustment to a poorly constructed accounting method for GHGs. In accounting for estimated carbon released due to the use of biofuels, policymakers have failed to account for the carbon released when existing land is cleared to make room for biofuel crops. While biofuel plants are growing they absorb carbon, when they are used for fuel they emit carbon. These impacts are accounted for in the current policy system. What the current system fails to do is account for the carbon lost when an existing carbon absorbing plot of land (for example a forest) is destroyed in order to grow biofuel crops. The poor design of this accounting is obvious and the fix is equally so. The system must be adjusted to account for the carbon emissions related to land-use. What good is a system to account for carbon emissions that doesn't account for some of the emissions? Perhaps Jae Edmonds, energy scientist, said it best, "If you count only part of the carbon, you set up a set of incentives that are all wrong."

Fixing the incentives is exactly what the policymakers and scientists are proposing, although not without backlash from the biofuel industry. In a move sure to damage their credibility as sustainable enterprises, biofuel companies are challenging the attempted correction to the accounting. The fix is crucial though as the problem is present in each of the climate bills currently being considered in Congress.

What this correction reveals about our approach to sustainability is less than complimentary. Sustainability policy must be thoughtfully and carefully crafted and by definition cannot defeat itself through unintended consequences. A system to account for carbon emissions from biofuels that does not include all the carbon emitted is exactly that type of policy. It kills its own effort at reducing carbon emissions.

We often rush to anoint a policy or approach as the savior of the planet without stopping to consider if it produces a negative unintended consequence. A prime example of such a policy is biofuel related and fresh in our minds: ethanol. At least in the United States, ethanol serves as a grisly reminder of an alternative energy policy with the unwanted side effect of rising food prices. By subsidizing corn growth for ethanol, the government effectively contributed to a rise in overall food costs. Come to find out, the corn variety of ethanol we produce in the U.S. isn't even meaningfully efficient. As a general rule, we should not pursue policies that improve one part of the environmental while ruining another. It is by definition unsustainable.

Tony Blair Drops An Interesting Fact

Weeks ago at the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tony Blair, and Dr. Rajendra Pachauri sat down in a lunchtime conversation around the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen and the green economy in general. The conversation in its entirety is engaging and worth listening to, but one comment from Blair in particular is illuminating for those who think a transition to a sustainable economy is a transition to zero growth and loss of economic potential.

Speaking about the need to overcome obstacles to sustainability, Blair dropped this fact:

"We [the UK] now employ more people in environmental technology, in the new industries around the environment, than we do in coal, steel, and ship building put together and doubled."

Which is an impressive little fact.

You can view the entire conversation here. Mr. Blair's comment comes at the 25:30 mark of the video.

Energy Star Dims A Bit

The star in the U.S. government's Energy Star certification shines a little less nowadays thanks to the revelations detailed in a recently released report from the Department Of Energy.

The DOE and the EPA jointly run the Energy Star certification program. In short, Energy Star is a certification program that puts an Energy Star logo on products that are designed to use significantly less energy than their non-certified competitors. If the objective is to design a system that accurately describes the environmental impact of a product, Energy Star is not the pinnacle of effective consumer labeling. Yet, it has been effective at shifting consumers towards more energy efficient products. Energy Star is to be praised for the shifts in design and consumption it has sparked. It can be reasonably assumed that Energy Star's success and power are directly related to the unbiased third party nature of its arbiter. The government has no financial stake in certifying one product over another, so for that and many other reasons, people felt they could trust the rubber stamp.

As it turns out, the government's audit of its own program has returned less than encouraging results. Large, credibility damaging holes have been found. The audit discusses the following problems:

• Disparity between a product's claimed energy rating and its actual energy consumption (sometimes using twice as much as claimed).
• The DOE/EPA's decision to allow product manufacturers to self-certify a product's compliance with Energy Star instead of requiring them to use independent labs.
• Energy Star's failure to identify the top performing products in particular product categories. This last problem is especially problematic since it flies in the face of the original intention of the program: to identify, in each product category, the top 25% of products by energy performance. The audit reveals that 90% of CFL bulbs currently qualify for the Energy Star logo.

Much could be said in general about the shortcomings of certification systems. Despite all that could be said though, Energy Star has been known as one of the bigger and more respected certifications. To see such flaws are embedded in its makeup is disheartening. At each point of failure, the DOE/EPA have potentially set back the effectiveness of the Energy Star label. It remains to be seen what the full impact on consumer confidence is and perhaps it will remain strong. The agencies have quickly pledged to revise the Energy Star program to solve these problems. The high confidence of consumers should never have been put in jeopardy in the first place though. The DOE and EPA should get to work immediately and restore some of the shine to their Energy Star program. We will all benefit from the improvements.

Little Laboratories

College and university campuses are becoming the little laboratories that the shift towards sustainability needs.

The shift towards environmental sustainability is already happening. Two questions remain: How quickly will the shift occur? and Will the shift be complete or will we stop at a middle ground short of true sustainability? On campuses all over America, colleges and universities are doing their best to answer the first question with, "quicker than you'd expect." These colleges and universities are doing excellent work in achieving sustainability goals that most towns, states, and nations are only dreaming of seeing realized.

With complete awareness of the limits of using just one metric, first consider the adoption of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification on American campuses. According to RREEF Research, a real estate investment research group, colleges and universities helped spearhead the green building movement. In the earliest years of LEED certification, 2000-2002, colleges and universities owned 12% of the total of LEED certified buildings. This figure falls short of the two leaders, corporate owners/operators and the government. But it is well above the 3% then owned by private developers. The intention here is not to trash private developers, because their share of the green building market took off shortly thereafter. It's only to point out that colleges and universities were apparently safe places to try building a more sustainable building. Campus was a safe place to try a big experiment and see what happened.

More recently, campus has continued to tread on the leading edge of sustainable practices. Check out any of the top ranking schools at the Green Report Card website. This rating system from the Sustainable Endowments Institute is a window into the type of practices and systems that can make the leap from college campus to towns and cities. Alternative energy production that goes beyond solar power, energy efficiency retrofits, sustainable food programs, and many other measures are cost saving, environmentally friendly moves that are benefiting the schools that implement them and showing the way for those of us who don't live within the boundaries of a university campus.

Why does the sustainable movement on college and university campuses matter? First, it is politically neutral. Which is something the shift towards environmental sustainability needs. It is hard to object, purely out of political preference, to local campus initiatives to better the lives of students and save the universities money. But perhaps the biggest reason why campus sustainability is important is related to its connection to so many future leaders and public voices. This is no argument for indoctrination or vote in favor of brainwashing in the name of the environment. University life should be all about asking the hard questions in the interest of the truth. However, in considering a shift to sustainability, one wonders what the marginal impact on a student is if he or she attends a sustainably focused campus.

Surely a little time in the laboratory is good for everyone.

Consumer Movement

Interesting report out recently from the University of Manchester, arriving at a conclusion that should have seemed common sense to everyone: consumers matter in the fight against global climate change. While the environmental movement seems to have a strong bias against consumer culture, it will have to make peace with at least one truth of our modern global economy: people consume things. The environmental sustainability movement can either get on board with this truth or it might die trying to stand in front of a moving train.

Refreshingly, this report and its lead researcher, Prof. Mohan Munasinghe, appear to have taken an approach that will benefit both consumers and the environment. Perhaps the most important of all of the report's recommendations is the recommendation that consumers be given more power to choose low-carbon products. Since opinion polls, even those taken during this most recent economic downturn, show that people want to buy environmentally friendly products. Harnessing the power of the consumer will certainly be a key to the advance towards sustainability.

Gas Leaks

As we explore what it means to have more sustainable interaction with the environment, it is important to benchmark where we are now in order to know where we have to go. It is wonderful to talk about improved efficiency. But improved from what? How inefficient are we now? This story in today’s NY Times discusses where we are now with regard to methane leaking from oil and natural gas plants and pipelines. Where we have to go from there is quite clear.

Methane, as the article discusses, is one of the greenhouse gases scientists believe is causing global climate change. It hangs around in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time than carbon, but also traps more heat. EPA data, cited in the article, point to Russia and the United States as the countries leading in methane leaks from oil and natural gas industries. Estimates put the total amount of methane lost through leaks at three trillion cubit feet per year.

At issue in this situation is monitoring of the pipelines and facilities. It is possible to lay aside all discussion of greenhouse gases, global climate change, and alternative fuel sources and speak strictly of efficient business operations and arrive at the conclusion that the oil and gas industry should be making this a high priority. A business that operates failing and inefficient equipment can hardly be noted for stellar operations.

If the delivery trucks that brought toys to your local retail store lost 25% of their shipments en route, there would be an effort to find a solution and stop the losses. That gas and oil companies are seemingly unconcerned with inefficiencies in their business is baffling and flies in the face of what we should expect from participants in the free market.

Of course, there is also a climate reason to be concerned about GHG leaks in oil and gas infrastructure. A progressive categorization of methane, indeed all GHGs, would describe it as a pollutant. If that seems too aggressive and harsh, then at the very least and most lenient it could be considered a gas we have good reason to pay attention to. Either way, leaking methane is a public concern. Privately owned and operated oil and gas companies should be moving quickly to curb these leaks. It can only benefit them. If they do invest in efficiency, they will see financial benefit and probably a positive public relations bump as well. If they don’t monitor themselves they might be exposed to regulation and government involvement.

Leaking methane; one of many examples of situations where private entities can be proactive in helping us towards environmental sustainability and win financially at the same time.

Logical Follow Up Question

In a follow up to yesterday's posting on AB 920, a logical question to ask is: what's in it for the utility companies? Luckily the state didn't miss a chance to effect reasonable public policy.

Under California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), utility providers are mandated to develop an energy portfolio that contains 33% renewable energy by the year 2020. Under the new mandate to pay consumers for surplus energy they generate, utility providers are allowed to credit renewable energy purchased from customers towards their renewable energy portfolio goals.

This common sense policy decision allows the mandates in AB 920 to create winning situations for utilities and customers.

AB 920

Continuing on yesterday's theme of California environmental legislation:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed two renewable energy bills into law. AB 920 and SB 32 carry hope for those who want to see renewable energy generation take off in a big way. While SB 32 expands an existing state program to encourage the construction of "large-scale solar facilities", AB 920 will require utility providers in California to pay customers for energy they generate from their own solar equipment. Up until now, and until January 1, 2010 when the law takes effect, utility providers were not required to compensate private citizens who generated surplus energy and fed it back into the grid. AB 920 is important for at least two reasons:

1) It promotes energy conservation in households that have installed renewable energy equipment. Since the customer will only be compensated for surplus or extra energy, they are incentivized to consume less energy than they produce. Will this be possible for all houses with solar panels? Most certainly not. But some (most?) consumers are certainly already consuming less than they produce and the only benefit they receive is a zero on their utility bill. That's a great benefit mind you, but hardly equal compensation. Which leads us to the second important reason why AB 920 is important.

2) It establishes a common sense rule for the energy market: if you generate energy, you should be compensated for it. Paying citizens for generating surplus energy can shift the financial outlook for the installation of renewable energy sources on everyday homes. If you know you will receive a check at the end of the year for all of the energy you produced but didn't consume, your barrier towards investment in renewable energy will drop. Also, this levels the energy market by enabling private citizens to become mini-utility providers. When SoCal-Edison generates energy they require compensation from customers. Now in the California energy market, payment for energy produced is a two way street.

The California Public Utility Commission will be tasked with setting the appropriate price for the surplus energy. While determining this price they should be guided by at least two goals: incentivizing consumer installation of renewable equipment and adequately compensating the utilities for the use of their infrastructure. After all, the surplus energy cannot be sold without the existing infrastructure.

Can this model be replicated in other states? Absolutely. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 42 states have adopted a "net-metering" policy, in which some or all utilities operating within the state are required to offer customers the option of net-metering (a total account of their energy use vs. production). However, not all of these states mandate that utilities pay consumers for the excess energy. In some states, surplus energy use is carried over to the next billing cycle indefinitely as credit. In others, the surplus energy is credited to the next month and at the end of a 12 month cycle the utility retains the value of the excess energy.

California is not the first state to adopt a surplus energy buy-back mandate, but California and states like it can serve as models for other states. We will all benefit from level energy markets that reward consumers who make an investment in surplus renewable energy production.

AB 811

This article from the Sacramento Bee reports Sacramento, California area local governments are close to authorizing programs under California's Assembly Bill 811, a California law designed to encourage owners to complete energy efficiency upgrades to their property.

Under the AB 811 programs, local governments would finance the upgrades and property owners would then pay back the loan through an added charge on their annual property taxes. The loan and the payments are attached to the property, not to the property owner. This means if you were a property owner and participated in the program and one year later you sold your property, the new owner would be responsible for the rest of the loan payback. This makes sure that the responsibility for paying for the upgrades stays with the person who is receiving the benefits of better energy management.

Local governments are moving quickly to enact these programs because there is currently money available to them from federal stimulus financing. With California's financial health in dire condition, this may be an opportunity to enact AB 811 programs that local government cannot afford to pass up. The article mentions some cities may finance the programs from their own funds as the programs are expected to pay for themselves as the loans are paid back.

Front-end subsidizing of energy-retrofits and upgrades makes good sense and should be explored and pursued by state and local governments everywhere. It isn't a miracle pill and it can't work everywhere, but it is a fairly straightforward measure; easy to understand and easy to implement. Policies like these create positive situations for government, businesses, and citizens. These programs will work best when the payments added to the annual property taxes are roughly equal to or below the savings generated on the property owner's energy costs. This will probably be the most difficult portion of the program to calibrate, but it is worth the effort. These programs are winning solutions for the environment and our bottom line.

Resume Post

The following is a condensed and informal version of my professional resume. For a more complete resume, please contact me at: sustaintherevolution@gmail.com

Education

2007-2009

Masters of Public Policy, Pepperdine University

GPA: 3.88

Economics and State/Local Policy Emphasis

Capstone Project:

Product Impact Assessment: Shifting the Market Towards Green Products

This project developed a framework voluntary on product disclosure of Life Cycle Analyses to encourage more fully informed consumer choices.

2002-2006

Bachelor of Arts, Asbury College

GPA: 3.72

Social Work Major

Work Experience

May 2009 - Present

Volunteer, Pepperdine Univeristy's Center for Sustainability

-Helped plan Pepperdine's first sustainability audit

-Developed a draft plan to assess community aspects of sustainability on Pepperdine's campus

Dec. 2008 - July 2009

Contracted Employee, Strategic Development Solutions

-Assisted in drafting application material for federal New Market Tax Credit funding

-Served as the main contact for developers across the country

-Created Excel-based tool for tracking real estate developments across all three bottom lines

May 2008 - Aug. 2008

Intern, Strategic Development Solutions

-Completed comprehensive research on triple bottom line returns for real estate developments

-Provided research to non-profit client on structuring a charter school advisory board