As a few key issues continue to stall negotiations, the Danish prime minister took control of the climate conference on Dec. 16. as the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) moves into the final days of talks.

The president of the UN Climate Conference, Connie Hedegaard, has resigned, allowing the Danish prime minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen to take direct control of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen to ramp up efforts to secure a new deal, reports The Independent.

At the same time, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Dec. 16 that all countries should set tougher goals to fight global warming and rich nations should set how much aid they will give to poorer nations by 2020, reports Forbes.com (via Reuters).

Ban said the exact amount was up to member states but developing nations insist on a number such as $100 billion a year suggested by African nations by 2020, reports Forbes.com.

Males Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, on behalf of the African Group, announced on Dec. 16 that funding for adaptation and mitigation of climate change should reach $100 billion a year by 2020, reports Xinhua News Agency.

Zenawi also said in the article that funding should start by 2013 and reach $50 billion a year by 2015, with the funds allocated for the most vulnerable and poor nations, such as Africa and small island states.

Ban also said the Kyoto Protocol might be replaced by a new pact despite opposition by developing countries and that the world should set a goal to halve worldwide GHG emissions by 2050, reports Forbes.com.

However, this may difficult as the Group of 77 and China warned against any attempts to dismantle the Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding emissions reductions for industrialized countries, reports Xinhua News Agency.

The group also wants to keep the two-track negotiation mechanism established in the Bali Action Plan, which states developed countries should set emissions reduction targets for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol after the first period expires in 2012, and discuss how to help developing countries with their mitigation and adaptation efforts under the UNFCCC, according to the article.

Other key sticking points include both India and China’s refusal to set limits on their emissions, saying it hurts their economic growth, and their demand for at least $200 billion a year to help developing countries grow while curbing their emissions, reports BusinessWeek.

Businesses also continue to put pressure on climate negotiators to establish a strong climate deal. More than 1,000 companies, representing more than $11 trillion in market capitalization and $2.6 trillion in annual sales, released a position paper, “Business — The Real Deal”, prepared by WWF that spells out their demands.

They say a strong climate deal should allow businesses to make long-term investments in low carbon technologies, provide incentives to invest heavily in low carbon R&D and protects economies from dramatic impacts of climate change, reports WWF.

Although Prime Minister Gordon Brown has admitted that a new deal may not be decided on in Copenhagen, he said a deal could create up to 500,000 jobs alone in the UK’s “low carbon” industries, while helping the developing world fight climate change, reports BBC.

City leaders are also calling for strong emissions reductions. Mayors from New York, Toronto, Buenos Aires and Copenhagen along with other city leaders signed a resolution for “an ambitious and empowering deal” on carbon-dioxide emissions cuts at a meeting running concurrently with the climate talks, reports Bloomberg News.

One deal that negotiators may be able to finalize focuses on the role that forests play in curbing emissions. The New York Times is reporting that negotiators have nearly completed a deal that would compensate countries for preserving forests and other natural landscapes such as peat soils and swamps.

A final draft of the compensation program agreement, called Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), is expected to be delivered on Dec. 16 to ministers of the nearly 200 countries, reports the New York Times. While some negotiators said some details need to be worked out, all the major issues have been resolved, according to the article.

Sources: Environmental Leader, The New York Post & WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

The Obama administration should have sent federal stimulus money not to the U.S. states, but to cities, where ”most of the environmental damage is done and most of the chances for improvement are,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Tuesday.

Bloomberg joined about 80 other local leaders from around the world at a ‘’summit” that took place alongside the U.N. climate conference.

The mayors and other officials were from rich capitals like London and Tokyo and impoverished cities as Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Dhaka, Bangladesh. They were taking part in the five-day session to compare notes on how cities can help reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases, and save money on energy and other costs.

City leaders say they want to show the way, but can’t do it alone.

”While nations talk, cities act. Cities are delivering real cuts in greenhouse gases,” Toronto Mayor Steve Miller said. ”We have already cut 1 million tons of CO2 per year. To do more, we need our national governments to act.”

Midway through the 193-nation U.N. conference Tuesday, deep divides between rich and poor nations brought talks to a crawl. Negotiators sought agreement on new reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by industrialized countries, and controls on emissions growth in the developing world.

President Barack Obama and more than 100 other national leaders are scheduled to participate in the conference’s final days this week. Miller, Bloomberg, Copenhagen’s Ritt Bjerregaard and dozens of the other mayors Tuesday signed a joint declaration urging the leaders ”to embrace this chance and seal an ambitious and empowering deal in Copenhagen.”

New York — a city of islands, subways and other underground infrastructure — will be threatened by seas rising from global warming. To guard against ever-stronger sea surges from future hurricanes, some scientists and engineers have suggested the city build giant barriers in New York Harbor.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, is moving ahead with immediate plans to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from 2006 levels by 2030.

The New York City Council last week approved legislation requiring owners of larger buildings to do energy audits and replace insulation and take other steps toward energy efficiency, including upgrading their lighting. The city has also planted 300,000 of 1 million new trees, has extended bike lanes over 200 miles of streets, and has encouraged conversion to hybrid vehicles of 22 percent of the taxi fleet, among other emissions-saving steps.

”It is a big deal,” Bloomberg said at a panel session after the summit opening. He boasted that the city was making progress without financial support from New York State.

In fact, the mayor said, some of the $787 billion federal stimulus package, to create jobs in the midst of U.S. recession, became a ”great waste of money” when it was funneled to the states for projects.

”If the federal government really wants to do something, you give the money directly to the cities. The dumbest way to distribute the money is to send it to the states, because they have to spread it around the states for political reasons,” often to be spent on useless projects, he said.

”I’ve said this to the president and to every member of Congress I can buttonhole,” Bloomberg added. ”You really have to send the money where the problem is.”

Cities and towns consume two-thirds of the world’s total primary energy and produce more than 70 percent of its energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, the International Energy Agency reports. That will grow to 76 percent by 2030, the agency says. Most comes from electrifying and heating private, commercial and municipal buildings.

Other big cities are also trying to lead on climate. Sao Paulo, Brazil, for example, a sprawl of 11 million people, has by law set as a goal a 30 percent reduction in emissions by 2013. It has already achieved 20 percent since 2005, chiefly through its new system of generating biogas for energy at landfills, instead of allowing waste methane, a greenhouse gas, to rise into the skies.

Copenhagen, a city of 1.2 million, also has set ambitious goals. It’s cut CO2 emissions by 20 percent from 1995 to 2005. Mayor Bjerregaard plans to reduce it by another 20 percent by 2015, and then to become ”carbon-neutral” by 2025.

After round-table talks Tuesday, Bjerregaard said the plans and accomplishments laid out by other mayors ”will inspire all of us to act.”

Sources: The New York Post & WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

The United States pledged on Monday to contribute $85 million to a $350 million multinational fund aimed at speeding up renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies in poor countries.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu also announced a high-level meeting will be held in Washington next year of major developed countries’ energy ministers to discuss global deployment of clean energy technology.

Chu made the announcements on the sidelines of a December 7-18 international climate conference in Copenhagen.

The talks temporarily stalled on Monday when African countries walked out, accusing rich countries of trying to kill the U.N. Kyoto Protocol which set targets for emissions cuts by most industrialized countries.

Projects which the fund will support include a plan to speed affordable solar-generated lighting systems and LED lanterns to those without access to electricity.

Chu said the devices would eliminate air pollution from indoor kerosene lamps that he said contributes to 1.6 million deaths per year in poor countries.

Other facets of the programme are the encouragement of more energy-efficient appliances in developing countries and rich country information-sharing of clean energy technologies.

The White House said the financing would enhance a World Bank strategic climate fund that helps poor countries develop national renewable energy plans. 

Italy, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland also are participating and already have promised funds. Speaking more broadly about U.S. efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases associated with climate change, Chu said the Obama administration was serious about helping develop clean coal technology.

“What we want to see is the beginning of routine deployment hopefully within eight or 10 years,” Chu said.   Emissions from coal-burning power plants are considered a major contributor to global warming.

Sources: Reuters, Copenhagen & WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

After a yearlong review, environmental officials announced yesterday that they are continuing a 15-year-old moratorium on expanding or building new incinerators.

The review was part of the state’s effort to revise its solid-waste master plan and reduce the 1.5 million tons of trash it exports every year.

State officials had sparked controversy this year as they held public meetings around the state to consider revising regulations that have blocked the expansion of existing plants since 1994. New incinerators have been banned since 1990.

“We are serious about managing the waste we generate in a way that saves money for cities and towns, curbs pollution, and protects the environment,’’ Governor Deval Patrick said in a statement. “There are better ways than traditional incineration.’’

The extension was hailed by environmental groups.

“This is great news for the environment and for public health,’’ said James McCaffrey, director of the Massachusetts Sierra Club. “We applaud the administration for outlining a comprehensive agenda to promote green energy and combat waste that doesn’t include burning trash.’’

Over the years, to the chagrin of environmental groups, waste management companies have lobbied aggressively to lift the ban, arguing that new technology significantly reduces emissions and that it is better to burn the trash and collect the resulting energy than dump the refuse in the state’s rapidly filling landfills or ship it out of state.

Ted Michaels – president of the Energy Recovery Council, a Washington-based trade association for waste-to-energy companies – called the state’s decision “a real disappointment.’’

“We believe waste-to-energy is an asset in Massachusetts and other states,’’ he said. “It’s being embraced by the most environmentally progressive countries in the world, especially in Western Europe. ’’

Officials at Wheelabrator Technologies, which operates incinerators in Saugus, North Andover, and Millbury that provide enough electricity to power more than 150,000 homes a day, declined to comment.

Environmental officials had decried the efforts to end the moratorium, arguing that new incinerators, however improved technologically, would contribute more pollution. Allowing new plants, they said, would encourage more incineration of waste and stifle incentives to recycle.

They also pointed out that the state already incinerates about one-quarter of the 12 million tons of waste it produces a year, significantly above the average 7 percent of trash burned nationwide.

“Recycling saves three to five times the energy that can be captured by incineration and without the harmful impacts on public health and the environment,’’ said Lee Ketelsen, codirector of Clean Water Action New England. “Every 10,000 tons of garbage that goes to disposal creates only one job, but the same amount of discarded products can employ dozens of people in recycling and hundreds more in reuse and repair.’’

Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles said the master plan would strengthen the moratorium by reducing the amount of recyclable material going into the waste stream. It will also develop new standards for existing waste-to-energy facilities that require higher recycling rates, lower emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and higher efficiency in energy conversion.

In a telephone interview, Bowles said a careful review found that it would be better to do more to promote recycling. “There are potentially new technologies out there, but there hasn’t been enough exploitation of other technologies,’’ he said. “The waste-to-energy technology created some unacceptable choices.’’

The state’s overall recycling rate for municipal waste stands at about 37 percent, up just 3 percent since 2000, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Bowles said the state will focus on expanding recycling efforts by pushing new legislation that would make producers of electronics responsible for their disposal, expand the state’s bottle law to include water and sports drink bottles, and prod communities to increase so-called single-stream recycling, which eliminates the need for households to sort recyclables.

State officials said they expect to issue a new draft of the solid-waste master plan in early 2010.

David Abel can be reached at dabel@globe.com.  

Sources: The New York Times Company, Boston Globe & WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Largest recovery of money for hazardous waste clean up ever.

As a result of the largest environmental bankruptcy in U.S. history, $1.79 billion has been paid to fund environmental cleanup and restoration under a bankruptcy reorganization of American Smelting and Refining Company LLC (ASARCO), the Justice Department, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture announced today. 

ASARCO is a leading producer of copper and one of the largest nonferrous metal producers in the United States. It is based in Arizona and is responsible for sites around the country that are contaminated with hazardous waste.

The money from environmental settlements in the bankruptcy will be used to pay for past and future costs incurred by federal and state agencies at more than 80 sites contaminated by mining operations in 19 states.  Those states are Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

“Today’s landmark enforcement settlement will provide almost one billion dollars to clean up polluted Superfund sites,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “This will mean cleaner land, water and air for communities across the country.”

“The effort to recover this money was a collaborative and coordinated response by the states and federal government.  Our combined efforts have resulted in the largest recovery of funds to pay for past and future clean up of hazardous materials in the nation’s history.  Today is a historic day for the environment and the people affected across the country,” said Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli.

“This settlement exemplifies government at all levels working effectively for the American taxpayer to recover damages from polluters and restore and protect important national landscapes and significant wildlife resources that have been injured,” said Interior Assistant Secretary Tom Strickland.  “In consultation and collaboration with our state and tribal co-trustees, this money will be used exclusively to restore, replace or acquire the equivalent of resources injured at more than a dozen sites where ASARCO operated and we have identified natural resource damage.”  

“I would like to thank the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency and USDA Office of General Counsel for their diligence in reaching this comprehensive settlement that will so benefit restoration of public lands,” said Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.  ”This settlement provides significant resources to address land restoration from past mining activities on National Forest System lands in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana and Washington.”

Under the terms of the plan, all allowed claims were paid in full along with interest.  Funds were distributed as follows:

The United States received approximately $776 million, which will be distributed in accordance with the underlying settlements to address 35 different sites;

The Coeur d’Alene Work Trust was paid $436 million;

The three custodial trusts which address the owned but not operating properties of ASARCO and involve a total of 13 states and 24 sites were paid a cumulative total of approximately $261 million; and

Payments totaling in excess of $321 million were paid to 14 different states to fund environmental settlement obligations at 36 individual sites.

In total, the payment will address environmental cleanup and restoration at more than 80 sites around the country.  Much of the money paid to the United States will be placed in special accounts in the Superfund to be used by EPA to pay for future cleanup work.  It will also be placed into accounts at the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture to pay for natural resource restoration.

ASARCO filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. bankruptcy code on Aug. 9, 2005.  American Smelting and Refining Company or ASARCO has operated for nearly 110 years—first as a holding company for diverse smelting, refining, and mining operations throughout the United States and now as the Arizona-based integrated copper-mining, smelting, and refining company.

By the time it filed for bankruptcy, ASARCO’s core operating assets were limited to certain operations in the states of Arizona and Texas.  However, it continued to own numerous non-operating properties that were highly contaminated and was subject to environmental claims at sites that were not owned by the company.

In August 2009, following lengthy litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held a two-week hearing on competing plans of reorganization for ASARCO that would allow the company to be purchased out of bankruptcy.  During this hearing, two competing plans emerged that proposed to pay creditors in full with interest.   

On Aug. 31, 2009, Judge Richard Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi issued a recommendation to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to confirm the plan proposed by ASARCO’s parent company—a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico.  U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville accepted Judge Schmidt’s recommendation and confirmed Grupo Mexico’s plan on Nov. 13, 2009.

On Dec. 9, 2009, Grupo Mexico met its funding obligations and the plan was consummated.  Additionally, the environmental payment and property transfer obligations outlined in the numerous settlement agreements, which had been approved by the bankruptcy court over the course of the litigation, were complied with. 

The full payment of environmental claims, plus interest, will facilitate the cleanup of contamination and restoration of natural resources at numerous sites across the country.  The reorganized company remains liable for environmental liabilities at the properties that it will continue to own and operate.

More information on ASARCO bankruptcy:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/cleanup/cercla/asarco/index.html

Information on EPA cleanup enforcement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup

Sources: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Natural Gas Engines

Natural gas vehicles are predominantly in the public sector, 20% of the 80,000 municipality buses use them[1]. In the trucking industry, less than 1% of the 200,000 trucks have natural gas engines. They have also have found niche applications in refuse trucks (2,500), shuttle buses and delivery trucks (10-20,000), school buses (3,000) and light vehicle fleets (20,000)[2].

Natural gas engines are expected to gain wider acceptance towards 2010 when their fuel efficiency is expected to be 95% of diesel engines[3]. The newer engines increase the combustion efficiency by a richer mix of oxygen and fuel and by compressing the mixture before it is burnt. More air in the mix also reduces the NO_x emitted after the gas is burnt. Diesel engines will emit 6 times more NOx than natural engines.

Emission Standards and Cost of Engines

By 2010, the emission standards for heavy and medium-duty diesel engines are slated to be far more stringent. Fleets are switching to natural gas engines to avoid the higher costs of environmental compliance required of diesel engines. According to Dee Kapur, the President of the International Truck and Engine, the cost of a medium-duty truck will rise by $5,000 to $6,000 to meet the 2007 emission standards and as yet an undetermined figure to comply with the 2010 standards. The cost of heavy-duty trucks will rise by $10,000[4]. The ultra low-sulfur that would have to be used is reported to cost an additional 14-16 cents for every gallon.

Supply of Natural Gas

In the USA, the supply of domestically extracted natural gas is increasing and will encourage its use in transportation. According to a recent study of Navigant Consulting, supply of natural gas is increasing as unconventional sources of natural gas, shale gas, coal bed methane and tight gas, rise. Navigant’s estimates show that unconventional natural gas supply increased by 65% to 8.9 Tcf per year in 2007 from 5.4 Tcf per year in 1998 while its share increased from 28% of total supply to 46% in 2007[5].

More recently, production has surged especially in Texas and Wyoming[6]. The production increase is likely to be sustained because it is propelled by successful implementation of new technologies, i.e., horizontal drilling[7] which is able to draw on natural gas deposits in shale. These technologies can tap into the large reserves[8] of natural gas available in Barnett Shale deposits which were previously inaccessible[9].

In addition, supplies of liquefied natural gas are increasing dramatically[10]. The USA is expected to increase its imports from 2.1 Bcf / day in 2007 to 12.8 Bcf / day in 2016[11]. While in the past natural gas as a by-product of oil extraction was burnt, it is now stored as liquefied natural gas and increased transported and traded across the world.

Westport Innovations

At a time stock markets in the USA are expected to move sideways throughout 2010, the companies that have invested in their future and are poised to reap the benefits in the near term are most likely to see their stocks gain. Westport Innovations, a Vancouver based manufacturer of natural gas engines, fits the profile. It has gained market share in the market for natural gas engines in the size range of 5.9 and 8.9 liter. Over the last three years, it reinvested its profits to develop a market for heavy duty natural gas engines. Profits could rise sharply as expenses on market development decline and revenues from heavy duty vehicles increase.

The surpluses from CWI helped to fund the expenses for the development of heavy duty vehicles. In fiscal 2007 (ending March 31^st), the operating margin was $8.7 million (after deducting $ 8 million in R&D which were expensed to comply with US Accounting rules) on sales of $58 million or 29% on sales (excluding the R&D expenses). The margin at $21 million (after excluding R&D expenses) dropped to 19% in 2009 with sales of $110 million. The company began offering a LNG solution for 15 liter engines in early 2007 through Westport Power Inc. The expenses incurred for development of the market for heavy-duty trucks led to an increase in losses from $10.3 million or $0.41 per share in 2008 to $24.4 million or $0.81 per share in 2009, expenses for heavy duty trucks increased by $12.6 million.

Overall, the market for heavy duty trucks plummeted from a peak of 284,000 units in North America in 2006 to 145,000 units in 2008. Westport’s own sales of heavy duty vehicles dropped from 69 in fiscal Q2 2009 to 14 in 2010 and the YTD from 70 to 28. Due to a weak economic recovery, overall heavy duty truck sales are unlikely to recover significantly. Westport, however, will benefit from the purchase by the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports, a market it has been able to enter, of 8000 natural gas trucks that will be purchased over the next five years. The DOE has also allocated funds for the purchase of 2800 vehicles for the Clean City program. The cost differential between diesel and natural gas engines will be narrowed as owners of diesel engine trucks comply with more stringent emission regulations in 2010 and the Natural Gas Act, currently under consideration in the Senate, doubles the tax credit to $64,000. Surging supply of natural gas within the USA and imported LNG has increased the relative cost of diesel which now sells in the range of $5 a gallon in Southern California compared to $3.20 for natural gas.

[1] Quoted from, “The promise of natural gas as a transportation fuel”, Investor presentation, Westport Innovations Inc, 2008.

[2] The data is cited from “The compelling case for natural gas vehicles in public and private fleet applications”, by Mark Bentley, NGVAmerica.

[3] “Comparative costs of 2010 Heavy Duty Diesel and Natural Gas Engines”, California Natural Gas Vehicle Partnership”, July 2005.

[4] The figures were quoted in “The Great Discontinuity: Why Historical Studies are not a useful guide in making current and future heavy duty purchase decisions”, NGVAmerica, May 2006.

[5] “North American Natural Gas Supply Assessment”, Navigant Consulting, July 4^th 2008.

[6] “After 9 years of no net growth through 2006, an upward trend began that generated 3% growth between first-quarter 2006 and first-quarter 2007, followed by an exceptionally large 9% increase between first-quarter 2007 and first-quarter 2008…..between the first quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,… supplies ( from Texas ) grew by an exceptionally high 15%. Other contributing regions included Wyoming with growth of 9%, Oklahoma with 6% growth, and Louisiana with 4% growth”, quoted from EIA

[7] In the late 1990s, about 40 drilling rigs, or 6%, were drilling horizontally. As of May 2008, the number of rigs drilling horizontal wells has grown to 519 rigs, or 28% of the total

[8] Natural gas reserves in the USA are now estimated at 211 trillion cubic feet up 27% over the last decade according to the data quoted in “Ability of the USA to compete in the Global LNG Marketplace”, American Gas Foundation, October 2008

[9] EIA, op cit

[10] Based on the construction of existing facilities for the construction of LNG plants, the world’s production of LNG is expected to double from 22.4 Bcf / day in 2007 to 49.4 Bcf / day in 2016 according to the report prepared by the American Gas Foundation, October 2008.

[11] American Gas Foundation, op cit

Sources: Macro Trends and Investment Strategies, Westport Innovations and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

1          Emissions trading doesn’t work and won’t get us to 350 ppm.
2          The Kyoto Protocol has resulted in a net increase in emissions.
3          Emissions trading has created pollution hotspots.
4          “The economic logic of dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to it [….] countries in Africa are vastly UNDER polluted” ~ Larry Summers, while serving as Chief Economist of the World Bank. Summers is now Obama’s chief economic advisor.
5          The sulfur dioxide market is often held up as a successful model for the carbon market. What is not disclosed is that it led to pollution hotspots(areas of increased emissions) in majority people-of-color and low-income communities.
6          Chevron Facility, El Segundo(near Los Angeles), an example of one amongst many facilities that saw an increase in emissions from the S02 market.
7          Unocal Facility, Wilmington (near Long Beach, CA), an example of one amongst many facilitates that saw an increase in emissions from the S02 market.
8          Carbon trading privatizes the atmosphere, our global commons
9          “Trade in CO2 emissions is equated with the transfer of similar rights such as copyrights, patents, licensing rights and commercial and industrial trademarks.” ~ US Department of Energy
10        “If we put a price on every square inch of air, there are some of us who won’t be able to afford to breathe.” ~ José Bravo, Just Transition Alliance.
11        IMAGE: Carbon Market Daily – your future, marketized.
12        Carbon trading puts corporate profits before reducing emissions
13        “Finally, the legacy of cap-and-trade is not going to be a greener world. It’s going to be the world’s largest new stock market, trading exclusively in a stock called carbon credits, where the mega-profits will be made by speculators, hedge funds, and the same financial and investment houses that just finished crashing the global economy.” -Edmonton Sun
14        RWE, a German power company, got €5 billion in windfall profits in the 2005-07 period, without lowering emissions using carbon markets as an excuse to raise electricity prices despite getting carbon permits for free.
15        The proposed Australian emissions trading scheme will hand $16 billion dollars to big polluting companies.
16        According to the NY Times: “billions of dollars in special interest favors” were added to the ACES climate bill in order to win enough votes for it to pass the House of Representatives.
17       Trade in the carbon market provides a new source of funding for companies that produce large quantities of greenhouse gasses.
18       Companies can pass the cost of carbon credits onto consumers, allowing them to pollute at the same profit margin.
Reckless, mega-corporations with bad environmental and human rights records support carbon trading…
19        AES Corporation supports carbon trading
20        Alcoa supports carbon trading
21        Alstom supports carbon trading
22        Boston Scientific Corporation supports carbon trading
23        Chrysler supports carbon trading
24        Duke Energy supports carbon trading
25        Dupont supports carbon trading
26        Exelon supports carbon trading
27        Florida Power and Light supports carbon trading
28        Ford supports carbon trading
29         General Electric supports carbon trading
30        General Motors supports carbon trading
31        John Deere supports carbon trading
32        Johnson and Johnson supports carbon trading
33        NRG supports carbon trading
34        Pepsi supports carbon trading
35        PG&E supports carbon trading
36        PNM Resources supports carbon trading
37        BP supports carbon trading
38        Caterpillar supports carbon trading
39        ConocoPhillips supports carbon trading
40        Dow Chemical supports carbon trading
41        Rio Tinto supports carbon trading
42        Shell Oil supports carbon trading
43        Siemens supports carbon trading
(American International Group (AIG) and Lehman Brothers supported carbon trading too)
44        It perpetuates rich countries’ dominance over poor countries.
45        Carbon markets are fundamentally undemocratic
46        Basic policy decisions (how do we manage waste? protect forests? produce energy?) are moved out of the domain of public decision-making and into private hands by creating a system where private firms become the initiators of projects and policies.
47        Carbon trading encourages change at a glacial pace instead of the rapid transition from fossil fuels that is needed.
48        Carbon trading promotes “solutions” which are most profitable, not those which are most protective of the environment or social needs.
49        Carbon trading does nothing to regulate the host of other toxins released in the burning of fossil fuels
50        Since carbon markets rely on the price of carbon emissions to act as a regulator, volatility in these prices could have disastrous consequences for the public and the climate.
51        Volatile prices can result in sharp increases in power bills, hurting utilities customers
52        The American Clean Energy and Security act passed by the US House allows traders to “bank” carbon permits, a form of financial speculation that can create artificial scarcity and push up prices.
53        Carbon markets are like the Whack-a-Mole game; a victory against a proposed dirty coal plant in one location merely pushes the pollution elsewhere.
54        The process is dangerously complex and opaque. It disempowers citizens from being engaged in fighting climate change
55        “The more I look at Congress’ legislation to address climate change with a cap-and-trade program, the more it looks like a Rube Goldberg device – one of those amusing contraptions that employ all manner of moving parts in a complicated, convoluted process that performs a simple task.” -Marshall Saunders, Philadelphia Inquirer.
56        Corruptibility breeding comfort: the loopholes and political pork embedded in the carbon trading system have soothed major polluters into broad-based support.
57        “Cap and trade…is almost perfectly designed for the buying and selling of political support through the granting of valuable emissions permits to favor specific industries and even specific Congressional districts. That is precisely what is taking place now in the House Energy and Commerce Committee…” – New York Times (05/17/09)
58        Carbon markets hold carbon credits in reserve as a safety valve. If carbon prices get too high, the market is flooded with these reserve credits, preventing any chances of emission reductions.
59        The UN body which approves carbon market transactions is severely under-staffed, undermining their ability to police these transactions.
60        Auctioning of carbon credits has rarely happened, nearly all credits have been given away for free.
61        “If you didn’t auction the permits, it would represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.” Peter Richard Orszag Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
62        The American Clean Energy and Security act gives $126 billion in free allowances to heavy industry
63        The American Clean Energy and Security act gives $35 billion in free allowance to carbon capture and storage technologies
64        The American Clean Energy and Security act gives $378 billion in free allowances to electric utilities
65        The American Clean Energy and Security act gives $66 billion in free allowances to natural gas utilities
66        The American Clean Energy and Security act only requires 15% of pollution permits to be sold. The rest are given away.
67        The American Clean Energy and Security act gives $17 billion in free allowances to oil refiners
68        Carbon trading pushes pollution overseas into poorer countries with lower emissions caps.
69        Most “cap and trade” proposals (such as Kyoto’s “Clean Development Mechanism”, aka “CDM”) allow richer countries to exceed emissions caps by purchasing “offsets” generated by a project in poorer country which theoretically lowers carbon emissions there. But, it’s nearly impossible to prove that most offset projects would not have happened anyway without carbon financing.
70        “Carbon Offsets: an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.” -Dan Welch, writing in Ethical Consumer.
71        A German study reported that 86% of offset-funded projects certified by the UN were likely to have been carried out anyway, not contributing to any additional protection of the climate.
72        Emission reductions units, the currency of the carbon trading system, rarely represent actual emission reductions.
73        Ratings company IDEAcarbon reports that actual emissions reductions from offset projects are 30% less than promised.
74        Offsets encourage the fossil fuel economy instead of restricting it, allowing polluters to carry on polluting.
75        International offsets will drive carbon prices down by 89% under The American Clean Energy and Security act according to the EPA.
76        The American Clean Energy and Security act  gives nearly 5 times more money to polluters than to clean energy companies/organizations.
77        “The ACES bill would allow the use of up to 2 billion offsets each year, up to three-quarters of them from international sources. The use of these offsets would allow U.S. polluters to boost emissions by nearly two-fifths by 2012 and would not force cutbacks below today’s levels until 2027.” -San Francisco Chronicle
78        Australia’s proposed carbon trading scheme will do nothing to stop a major expansion of coal mining in New South Wales and other states, despite coal being the major source of Australian (and global) emissions.
79        Australia’s proposed carbon trading scheme would permit the expansion of the Mt. Piper power station and other coal-fired power stations.
80        The voluntary carbon offset market – which promises consumers “carbon neutrality” – helps normalize and justify the much larger corporate/government offset plunder, and perpetuates a consumer guilt paradigm that stifles genuine collective action.
81        Carbon offsets are like the buying of indulgences in the Catholic Church.
82        It makes as much sense as paying a couple to stay faithful to each other so that you can keep cheating on your partner.
83        We can’t buy our way out of real change.
84        “freecarbonoffsets.com” – Because no price is too low for feeling good about offsetting responsibility!
85        It encourages the same magical thinking as is putting trash in an landfill and believing it has somehow vanished from the Earth!
86        Many offset projects actively undermine communities living a sustainable, low-carbon lifestyle, promote human rights abuses or encourage environmental racism.
87        Carbon trading breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s “founding” document between indigenous peoples and colonists signed in 1851.
88        “Farming communities are more threatened now by the so-called solutions to climate change promoted by corporate interests, G8 countries, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, than by climate change in itself.” -Via Campesina
89        Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Jepirachi wind project received financing as a Clean Development Mechanism to construct a windmill farm in Colombia. The land being developed belongs to the indigenous Wayuu people, who did not want it. Over 200 Wayuu are alleged to have been killed in the ensuing land struggle. To add insult to injury, the windmills primarily provide power to the largest open-pit coal mine in the world!
90        One of the first carbon offset projects involved planting trees in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda by Dutch coal utilities. 6000 members of the Bagisu tribe, which lived in the area for centuries, had been forcibly displaced from the Park.
91        Plantar is seeking Clean Development Mechanism funding to plant 23,130 hectares of land in monoculture eucalyptus plantations in Brazil. Much of this land is publicly owned and used communally by peasants. The tree plantations will expropriate communal lands and put them in private hands.
92        South Africa’s proposed $15 million Clean Development Mechanism pilot: Generating methane at the environmentally-racist Bisasar Road dump, situated in the apartheid-era black residential suburb of Durban. This will increase pollution and could keep the facility open for an extra 15 years.
93        Sajida Khan (1952-2007), famed environmental campaigner of Durban, South Africa, lost her life to cancer while fighting to close the dump, which is a hotbed for illness.
94        The Chinese government evicted 7,500 people to build the Xiaoxi Dam. In the EU this would be illegal, as it fails to meet World Commission on Dams guidelines. Still, EU companies are able to offset their emissions financing this dam.
95        Many offsets are straight up scams.
96        “A French chemical company (Rhodia) operating in South Korea is anticipating $1 billion in carbon offset credits for investing $15 million in equipment to destroy nitrous oxide byproducts, using 1970s technology” -Wall St. Journal (05/23/08)
97        South Africa’s largest Clean Development Mechanism huckster is the apartheid-era coal/gas-to-oil corporation is SASOL, who attempted in 2008 to scam the United Nations CDM panel into granting it offset credits for a pipeline it had planned well before the CDM panel even began its work!
98        In 2009, Head of the Papua New Guinea Office of Climate Change, Theo Yasause, was removed after fake carbon certificates with his signature valued at $100 million were given to landowners to get them to sign over the rights to their forests.
99        Oil companies in Nigeria are poised to make huge sums of money by selling carbon credits for stopping gas flaring, despite the fact that gas flaring is supposed to be illegal in the first place.
100      SRF, an Indian company that produces refrigeration gases in Rajasthan, made £300 million from selling carbon offset credits, after spending only £1.4 million on equipment to reduce its emissions. The money earned was used to build more polluting chemical factories, thus raising emissions.
101      The 2 top offset auditors for the UN have been suspended for repeatedly approving faulty offset projects.
102      Offset money often goes to fossil fuel polluters.
103      Even new coal plants can receive carbon market funding under the Clean Development Mechanism, which finances so-called “supercritical technology” at India’s coal plants.
104      It will support the construction of one of the world’s top 50 greenhouse gas emitting projects – the $4 billion Tata Ultra Mega coal plants in Mundra, India.
105      “In an absurd contradiction the World Bank facilitates these false, market-based approaches to climate change while at the same time it is promoting, on a far greater scale, the continued exploration for, and extraction and burning of fossil fuels – many of which are to ensure increased emissions of the North.” Marcelo Calazans, Federation of Organizations for Social and Educational Assistance, Brazil
106      Carbon financing justified World Bank funding of the Allain Duhangan hydropower plant in Himachal Pradesh, India – one of the most controversial dam projects in the world.
107      The World Bank supported a 3,500 hectare tree plantation in the states of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, India.
108      Many not-so-clean, sustainable, and “green” projects are getting carbon financing as offsets – leading to increased fossil fuel pollution in rich countries, “offset” with environmental destruction in poorer ones.
109      “The reduction targets that are currently under discussion for a post-2012 climate agreement are not strong enough to create a balance between supply and demand, and either forest based carbon credits reduce the price of carbon or, if the sale of forest based credits were restricted, insufficient funds would be generated to make a significant dent in deforestation rates.” – Forests and the European Resource Network
110      Carbon markets are encouraging development of genetically engineered tree plantations for carbon sinks.
111      Dams receive Clean Development Mechanism financing despite being a major source of methane emissions. Massive amounts of methane are released as organic matter decomposes under water.
112      It is estimated that 40-80 million people have been displaced by hydroelectric dams. More than a few of these dams were financed via Clean Development Mechanisms.
113      The Grand Inga dam in the Democratic Republic of Congo will destroy a vast natural habitat and aggravate the external debt, while bringing no benefits for local people. Still, it is eligible for Clean Development Mechanism financing.
114      REDD, and more broadly, “forest offsets”, are nothing more than an attempt to sweeten “business as usual” environmental practices in developing countries with a few payouts to their governments.
115      “Research is increasingly showing that attributing a price to forest carbon will not be enough to save the forests or protect the climate and may lead to massive land grabs.” -FERN (Forests and the European Resource Network)
116      Reuters has reported that organized crime syndicates are eyeing the REDD forest carbon credit industry as a potentially lucrative new opportunity for fraud.
117      With REDD, “Companies would then buy cheap credits and continue doing business as usual rather than cutting their own emissions.”- Economist Magazine
118      Carbon takes millions of years to become stored in fossil fuels again. More vegetation is not equal to leaving carbon in the ground.
119      Forest offsets are largely frauds, because it is nearly impossible to accurately calculate the carbon-sequestering abilities of a forest with any degree of certainty.
120      REDD projects will be almost impossible to verify because of leakage (i.e., protecting forests in one area just leads to deforestation in an adjacent area) and non-permanence (i.e., forests certified as “protected” one day could be destroyed another) issues.
121      The UNFCCC definition of forests includes plantations (and even clearcuts, which are “temporarily unstocked areas”). Thus a country could create large “temporarily unstocked areas” by clearcutting forests before replacing them with monocultures, without causing any deforestation, according to UNFCCC.
122      REDD frameworks do not recognize indigenous rights and encourage encroachments upon indigenous lands and cultures.
123      Commodifying forest carbon is inherently inequitable, since it discriminates against people, and especially women, who previously had free access to the forest resources they need to raise and care for their families, but cannot afford to buy forest products or alternatives.
124      REDD compensation payments to governments may create a disincentive for government authorities to resolve long-standing land disputes in forest areas.
125      REDD pilot projects have already exacerbated eviction, fraud, conflict, corruption, coercion, and militarization.
126      In one case illustrating the deceptive practices companies use to gain control of forests for offset credits, a tribal representative in Papua New Guinea told newspaper Sydney Morning Herald he had been coerced into signing a memorandum of understanding that gave company Nupan power over his land, saying, ‘I couldn’t do anything … So I just went ahead and signed it.”
127      Indigenous Peoples could lose their land or other forms of collateral and/or have to reimburse carbon traders with money if a REDD project fails.
128      REDD could cause conflict over resources, forced relocation, and displacement.
129      REDD could criminalize indigenous livelihoods and blame Indigenous Peoples for climate change.
130      REDD could marginalize the landless.
131      REDD could privilege “Carbon Rights” over Human Rights.
132      REDD could repeat the mistakes of Clean Development Mechanism projects and encourage projects in areas of armed conflict.
133      The UNEP-funded Mau forest project in Kenya has added yet another case to the list of carbon offset projects triggering serious human rights violations: the Mau forest was made ‘ready’ for this carbon offset project by forceful and violent eviction of its inhabitants, including the Indigenous Ogiek People.
134      Industrial-scale trash burning is one of the fastest-growing energy sources being marketed as “green energy”.
135      By capturing methane and using it as fuel to produce electricity, landfill owners in the US can receive an income for selling carbon credits in the voluntary market. The investment pays off by itself, so the carbon offset revenue is a windfall profit.
136      By subsidizing incineration and landfills, carbon credits encourage increased waste of valuable resources.
137      Both the Senate and House cap and trade bills will provide massive incentives for biomass and waste incinerators.
138      Incinerators burn valuable resources. Over 90% of materials used to fuel incinerators could be recycled or composted.
139      Incinerators are one of the leading causes of dioxins and other toxic air emissions, and other predominantly sited in working class, Indigenous and people of color communities.
140      Incinerators emit more CO2 per kWh than coal plants
141      Waste incineration is amongst the largest categories of carbon offset projects. Here’s some of the worst of the worst:
142      Cixi City, Zhejian Province, China
143      Incineration of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge in Shaoxing City, People’s Republic of China
144      Linyi City, Shandong Province, China
145      Municipal Solid Waste Processing in the city of Chandigarh, India
146      PT Navigat Organic Energy Indonesia Integrated Solid Waste Management (GALFAD) Project in Bali, Indonesia
147      SESL 6 MW Municipal Solid Waste based Power Project Vijaywada & Guntur, India
148      Sidoarjo, Java, Indonesia
149      The Timarpur-Okhla Waste Management Company Pvt Ltd’s project at Delhi, India
150      The UN oversees over 1000 offset programs under the guise of the “Clean Development Mechanism.” Many CDM projects have proven to be total failures.
151      Coal bed methane extraction is the leading benefactor of the voluntary offset market in the US.
152      Coal bed methane extraction is a method by which methane within a coal seam is separated and removed for use as natural gas; through the Clean Development Mechanism, 12,799,507 carbon credits have been granted for coal bed methane projects.
153      The average project removes over 6 million gallons of water a year from coal bed aquifers, lowering the water table and often drying wells.
154      The whole scheme subsidizes and promotes the dirtiest fossil fuel out there: Coal!
155      Coal bed methane extraction requires extensive infrastructure, including roads, wells, pipelines, containment ponds, and compressor stations. Such projects generate unaccounted for “life cycle emissions” which significantly decrease the “emissions savings” of this form of energy production.
156      Water quality of the area surrounding the extraction site is threatened by highly saline water that is pumped out of the coal seams as well as the chemicals used to coax methane out of the coal bed.
157      While preventing methane from entering the atmosphere is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, CO2 is released when it is burned.
158      “The potential size and scope of a structured carbon emissions market in the U.S. is unequivocally vast. It is certainly possible that the emissions market could overtake all other commodity markets.”  Bart Chilton, Commissioner, U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission
159      US climate legislation would allow the use of 2 billion tons worth of carbon offsets by American industries in the US / year – equivalent to 1/3 of all US emissions.
160      Taking into account this offset allowance, gross emissions in the US could actually increase by 1/6 over the next 10 years, especially with the meager 17% reductions planned by the legislation
161      Capitalism is at the heart of the climate crisis. We cannot count on it for providing solutions to the problem it has fueled – climate change.
162      Carbon offsets allow environmental value to be negotiable, when science tells us the exact measures necessary to protect our future.
163      The profit motive of carbon trading requires growth. Growth spurs unnecessary energy use, which results in more emissions, which cannot be canceled out in the columns of their balance sheets.
164      Carbon trading is based on an ideological belief in the omnipotence of the market.
165      NRG Energy built a 1,700mw coal plant in Texas. The Environmental Defense Fund was against it, but dropped its opposition when NRG agreed to offset half of its emissions.
166      Time after time, privatization has been a disaster in the Global South when services such as water, education and health care were privatized. This time, the effects of leaving important things to the market cannot be undone!
167      Carbon trading is a complex, artificially-created market subject to the same failures as the subprime housing market.
168      “Subprime carbon” are risky carbon offset credits based on uncompleted offset projects that may ultimately fail to reduce greenhouse gases and, like subprime mortgages, could collapse in value.
169      “The global economic downturn and a growing trade in sovereign emissions rights are combining to create a ‘perfect storm’ that threatens to derail already sluggish efforts to cut greenhouse gases in poor countries.” -Reuters (06/05/09)
170      Subprime carbon can cause more than just an economic collapse. This time, it will be more than homes getting foreclosed on.
171      The entire process is a corporate-driven conflict of interest: Private firms propose the projects and the methodologies to evaluate them. The system is tweaked in favor of private enterprise rather than the public interest, since the system is run by the private sector.
173      SGS, the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors in September 2009 because it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the EU’s carbon trading scheme.
172      The suspension of SGS wasn’t the first for carbon market “watchdogs” – Norway’s Det Norske Veritas was penalized in November 2008 for similar infractions.
174      Anyone remember Enron and Arthur Anderson?
175      Just look at the history of the idea of carbon markets!
176      “Enron immediately embarked on a massive lobbying effort to develop a trading system for carbon dioxide[...]Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to [leading carbon trading advocate] the Nature Conservancy [...]Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide.” Financial Post (May 30, 2009)
177      “[I]t is not an exaggeration to brand the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol as ‘Made in the USA.’ . . . The sensitivity of the Protocol to the market was largely instigated by the negotiating positions of the USA.”  -Michael Zammit Cutajar, former Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, 2004
178      Deals with Devils: The Environmental Defense Fund created the “Environmental Resources Trust” to promote carbon trading. The ERT is chaired by Clayland Boyden Gray, Bush’s ambassador to the EU, a longtime opponent of global warming treaties and environmentalists. -nonprofitwatch.org
179      Kyoto “would do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative.” ~ Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, sent in a 1998 letter to Bill Clinton
180      It encourages a revolving door between NGO’s and the energy market, and thus a reliance on energy industry “experts” influenced by the business culture and priorities of the fossil fuel industry.
181      The UN body which approves carbon market transactions relies heavily on third-party verifiers whose wages are ultimately paid by the very corporations seeking approval. This conflict-of-interest  creates pressure for the transactions to be approved.
182      Carbon trading undermines, replaces and even outlaws other regulations.
183      A leaked government memo in the UK showed that the government was thinking of dropping renewable energy targets, as they were “interfering” with the carbon market.
184      A simple, non-negotiable cap on emissions would be much more effective.
185      Carbon trading would strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
186      It discourages enacting new GHG-reducing laws because legally-mandated greenhouse gas reductions are ineligible for financial benefits of the Clean Development Mechanisms.
187      It rewards corporations whose governments lack emissions reduction laws. Companies should not be able to receive funds for emissions reduction while they simultaneously are lobbying/bribing against GHG regulations.
188      When carbon permits are auctioned, governments often use the income to aid research and development for status quo fossil fuel polluters as well as subsidizing dubious  solutions
189      The promised expansion of carbon financing keeps the geoengineering industry dreaming about large-scale intentional manipulation of the earth by fertilizing the ocean, shooting sulphates into the stratosphere or putting mirrors in space.
190      When revenue from permit give-a-ways and subsidies to fossil fuel industry research are added together, status quo polluters  get about 80% of the income generated from the  The American Clean Energy and Security act.
191      The bill encourages encourage genetically modified, fossil-fuel-fertilizer-intensive, pesticide-drenched “no-till” farming, instead of organic farming.
192      In the  The American Clean Energy and Security act  almost none of the proceeds from the meager 15% of permits auctioned sold goes to creating “green jobs” – indeed nearly 6 times as much goes to subsidizing research into clean coal.
193      It promotes “clean” coal by providing incentives for carbon capture and sequestration technology. Even if CCS worked, it ignores the devastating impacts of coal from cradle to grave lifecycle impacts.
194      Carbon trading promotes the expansion of biofuels. Biofuels rarely reduce carbon emissions, result in deforestation, and force people to compete with machines for food..
195      Ethanol plants pollute water. They generate 13 liters of wastewater for every liter of ethanol produced.
196      Bio-diesel from palm oil has led to increased planting in clear cut areas. This reduces the amount of carbon tied up in biomass, which means a net increase in atmospheric CO2.
197      Biofuel crops could  put an unbearable strain on the global water supply: Replacing 50 percent of the fossil fuels used annually with biofuels would require up to 12,000 extra cubic kilometers of water a year- the total annual flow down the world’s rivers is 14,000 cubic kilometers.
198      Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannahs or grasslands to grow fuel crops releases CO2, in some cases a staggering 420 times more CO2 than from burning fossil fuel.
199      Ethanol is directly linked to the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. If farmers produced enough corn to meet the congressional goal of producing 15 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, nitrogen runoff into the Gulf would increase by 10% to 19%.
200      Growing plants for fuel will accelerate already unacceptable levels of topsoil erosion, soil carbon and nutrient depletion, soil compaction, water retention, water depletion, water pollution, air pollution, eutrophication, destruction of fisheries, siltation of dams and waterways, salination, loss of biodiversity, and damage to human health.
201      The biofuels craze could starve people: The surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world.
202      The expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia.
203      High volume production of biofuels will favor industrial-style, high-volume, high-capital, low-labor agriculture that will force more people off farms and out of small villages into mega-cities.
204      Using fertilizer on biofuel crops will emit enough nitrous oxide (as a heat-trapping gas, more than 296 times more powerful than CO2) to wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce.
205      Carbon trading promotes the use of nuclear energy as a no-emission technology. Which it’s not.
206      Demand would greatly outstrip supply–In fact, the current global capability is to produce 8 reactors per year.
207      Nukes are too expensive–Nuclear power is now so expensive that if we tried to use it as a climate change mitigation strategy, we would blow through our resources and be left with no options whatsoever.
208      New nukes take too long–Even the industry’s Nuclear Energy Institute predicts only about 4 new reactors in the US by 2020
209      Renewables and efficiency are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner than nuclear power–In short, energy efficiency programs are beginning to work.
210      “Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power company, stands to rake in roughly an extra $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year if the House (cap and trade) climate change bill passes, according to the company’s own estimates.” -Huffington Post
211      Emissions free? Not even close– Every nuclear facility of any kind, emits radioactive elements into our air and water on a daily basis, even when everything goes right.
212      It takes too many nukes– It would take 1500-2,000 new nuclear reactors or more by mid-century, 300-400 in the U.S. alone, to make any kind of meaningful reduction in carbon emissions—by meaningful, I mean even a 20% reduction.
213      Not suited for warming climates–Reactors require large amounts of water for cooling. As climate change heats our water, nuclear power stations will close more and more frequently. Several nuke plants have already had to shutdown during unprecedented heat waves.
214      Nukes are unsafe–The reality is that reactor design—at least for those planned by nuclear utilities—has progressed remarkably little since the 1960s. But not a single reactor being seriously proposed anywhere in the world even claims to be an “”inherently safe”" design—not that any such thing exists at all.
215      Nukes aren’t carbon free–It’s true that nuclear reactors themselves emit only small amounts of carbon. In fact, the mining, milling, processing, enrichment and fuel fabrication of uranium, not to mention the construction of enormous reactors made of concrete, steel, and the millions of gallons of gasoline involved, leaves a fairly significant carbon footprint.
216      The US Department of Energy states there are “millions of gallons of radioactive waste” as well as “thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material” and also “huge quantities of contaminated soil and water” produced by nuclear facilities that require storage. And yet there is still no permanent place to store them in the US.
217 – 259         Under the proposed carbon trading bill in the United States congress,  43 proposed coal plants will be grandfathered in as a compromise to the big polluters who largely drafted the bill. These new plants will add more than 150 MILLION tons of C02 to the atmosphere every year for decades to come, and continue our addiction to fossil fuels.
260      Coal mining in Happy Valley, on New Zealand’s South Island, is set to proceed despite their Kyoto commitments – a massive climate crime.
261      In order to pass a carbon trading bill in the United States, experts expect that negotiating a “deal with the devil” to allow Offshore Drilling will be required.
262      Due to it’s lower C02 content, natural gas use is increasing rather than decreasing under carbon trading schemes. But by ignoring the “lifecycle” impacts of natural gas, carbon trading wreaks havoc on communities worldwide and continues our reliance on fossil fuels.
263      LNG has lifecycle emissions approaching that of coal.
264      Emissions generated by the importation of LNG aren’t considered as part of the emissions cap  so that LNG imports are strongly encouraged by carbon trading.
265      There are 29 approved or proposed “liquefied” natural gas (LNG) importation terminals planned in the US.
266      Agricultural industries aren’t included in the emissions cap under The American Clean Energy and Security act, even though they are responsible for 8% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
267      Carbon trading largely fails to address the largest single energy consumer in the world, the US Department of Defense – upward estimates put oil use by the DoD as high as the country
 of Indonesia (population 235 million).”
268      There are alternative policies.
269      “Ladies and gentlemen, I have the answer! Incredible as it might seem, I have stumbled across the single technology which will save us from runaway climate change! From the goodness of my heart I offer it to you for free. No patents, no small print, no hidden clauses. Already this technology, a radical new kind of carbon capture and storage, is causing a stir among scientists. It is cheap, it is efficient and it can be deployed straightaway. It is called… leaving fossil fuels in the ground.” George Monbiot, Columnist with the Guardian UK”
270      An Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard that reduces energy demand by 50% in 20-30 years, across the transportation, heating and electricity energy sectors.
271      A Clean Energy Portfolio Standard that meets the demands of the other 50% with wind, solar and ocean power (some small-scale micro-hyrdo or closed-loop geothermal) within the same time frame.
272      Creating a “Superfund for Workers” job retraining program to make this transition possible, targeting the urban and rural communities who are most in need.
273      Implement a zero-cut policy on our National Forests to keep forest carbon intact.
274      Remove all subsidies from fossil fuels, nuclear power, biomass/incineration, biofuels, and eliminate at least half of the military budget and shift the savings  to energy demand reduction and clean energy initiatives.
275      Set a national “zero waste” policy, starting with the 75% national recycling/composting target (a goal endorsed by unions as well as climate activists).
276      Shift farm subsidies from industrial agri-business to locally oriented sustainable food systems.
277      The Rodale Institute has found that if all corn and soybeans in the US were grown organically up to 560 billion pounds of carbon could be sequestered annually from the atmosphere.
278      The USDA can promote agricultural practices that sequester carbon into the soil, creating carbon sinks not tied to offsets.
279      Use the millions of dollars the Forest Service spends to subsidize logging to fund real ecosystem restoration, creating carbon sinks not tied to offsets.
280      Grassroots alternatives provide solutions that nurture communities not corporations.
281      Local currencies and time banks re-localize economics and create a system of exchange based on community and mutual aid rather than unsustainable consumption and social inequality.
282      Organizing skill-shares and sharing tools and other resources can help build community self-sufficiency.
283      “Bike culture” – community rides, car-free days, maintenance skill building, and bike sharing programs have created community-based alternatives to automobile-domination in cities worldwide.
284      Cohousing, resident-developed neighborhoods centered around a common house, dramatically reduces resource consumption while building a new model of social interaction.
285      Permaculture – a method of agriculture and community design that uses a model based on natural ecosystems to relocalize and integrate sustainable food production into human settlements.
286      Reduce our consumption of meat. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization found that meat production is responsible for 18% of all human induced greenhouse gases.
287      Support for struggles of resistance to resource colonialism, from Appalachia to Iraq, supports the creation of alternatives by taking on the government and business interests fueling climate change.
288      “Transition Towns”, of which there are currently 227 official initiatives, are attempts to address climate change and peak oil by increasing resilience and reducing carbon emissions as a community.
289      Direct resistance to fossil fuels correctly identifies the root cause of climate chaos.
290      Anti-natural gas imperialism in Bolivia [image]
291      Protesting the Asian Development Bank’s role in dirty energy development in Thailand [image]
292      Protesting coal in Bangladesh [image]
293      Anti-coal billboard alteration in Australia [image]
294      Coal port kayak blockade in Australia [image]
295      Protesting natural gas expansion in Irkutsk [image]
296      Anti- “mountaintop removal” coal mining in Appalachia US [image]
297      Rising Tide Coal plant blockade in Appalachia US [image]
298      Airport shut down in the UK [image]
299      Ken Saro-Wiwa was martyred fighting big oil in Nigeria [image]
300      Indigenous resistance to coal in the US southwest [image]
301      Anti-oil resistance in Thailand [image]
302      Blockading natural gas expansion in the US [image]
303      The oil enforcement agency fighting highway expansion. [image]
304      Opposition to Carbon Trading is mounting.
305      “The only defense of this monstrous absurdity that I have heard is ‘well, you are right, it’s no good, but the train has left the station.’ If the train has left, it had better be derailed soon or the planet, and all of us, will be in deep do-do.”" ~ Dr. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Regarded as one of a handful of top global experts on climate change and the scientist most responsible for the development of the 350ppm target.
306      “If we hold up banners saying climate change kills and we want more government action, the very power groups driving the destruction will cheer and might give us even more carbon finance or agrofuels. The time for marching for ‘global action on climate change’ without denouncing the false solutions and the drivers of climate change is over.” -Simone Lovera, activist with Friends of the Earth Paraguay and the Global Forest Coalition
307      Art exposing the carbon market fraud. [image]
308      Cap’n Trade interrupting the speech of the Danish climate minister. [image]
309      Indigenous resistance to REDD at the UN. [image]
310      Taking action against crony environmental groups like Environmental Defense. [image]
311      Anti-offset office occupation by the “Red Herrings for Carbon Trading” [image]
312      Sweeping the coal under the rug at the Carbon Neutral Company, UK [image]
313      Interrupting the first US carbon market conference with a presentation of a Deed to the Sky [image]
314      Speaking truth to power at the UNFCCC [image]
315      Anti-carbon trading banner hang targets the New York city UN meetings. [image]
316      Dancing against forest offsets in Bali [image]
317      Protesting research on genetically engineered “carbon sucking” trees. [image]
318      Protests drove Occidental Petroleum out of Ecuador
319      All-female anti-liquefied natural gas action in US  29 declarations of social movements against carbon trading:
320      Mount Tamalpais Declaration, 2000
321      Mount Kenya Declaration on the Global Crisis and Africa’s Responsibility 31 May 2009
322      IV Continental Summit Indigenous peoples Abya Yala:: Mama Quta Titikaka Declaration 31 May 2009
323      Bali Declaration: 10 December 2007
324      People’s Protocol on Climate Change, 15 December 2008
325      Report of Asia Summit on Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples , 5 June 2009
326      14th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC Poznan Policy Positions International Youth Delegation Policy Positions: December 2008
327      World Social Forum Climate Justice Assembly Declaration 1 February 2009 Belem
328      Milan Declaration of the 6th International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change 30 November 2003
329      Hague Declaration of the Second International Forum of Indigenous and Local Communities on Climate Change 12 November 2000
330      The Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading , 10 October 2004
331      Biochar Declaration 2009 :‘Biochar’, a new big threat to people, land, and ecosystems
332      Nairobi Declaration, Africa Peoples Movement on Climate Change (A-PMCC) 30 August 2009
333      The California Environmental Justice Movement’s Declaration Against the Use of Carbon Trading Schemes to Address Climate Change, 19 February 2008
334      Bali Principles of Climate Justice 29 August 2002
335      Quito Declaration 4 May 2000
336      Plataforma Boliviana Frente al Cambio Climático INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE JUSTICE TRIBUNAL 14 October 2009
337      The better world we seek is not Geo-engineered! A Civil Society Statement against Ocean Fertilization. 10 March 2009
338      Declaration of Women in Asia on Climate Change 29 September 2009
339      Indigenous Environmental Network Report Calls For The Rejection Of REDD 02 October 2009
340      Delhi Climate Justice Declaration 1 Nov 2002
341      The Anchorage Declaration 24 April 2009 – Indigenous People’s Global Summit on Climate Change
342      The Albuquerque Declaration November 1, 1998
343      Oilwatch POSITION ON VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET 2008
344      CONFEDERACION DE NACIONALIDADES INDIGENAS DE LA AMAZONIA ECUATORIANA “C O N F E N I A E” 3 August 2009
345      Lyon Declaration of the First International Forum of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on Climate Change 6 September 2000
346      The Bonn Declaration Third International Forum of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities on Climate Change July 14 15, 2001
347      INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL 34th ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Resolution on the Protection of the Environment and biodiversity: Climate Change, Mining, Oil, Water and Natural Resources 22 June 2008
348      Via Campesina position on UNFCCC 5 December 2008
349      Because you care about your children and their children.
350      Because nearly 100 people, from 6 continents and 13 countries, cared enough about the climate and human rights to volunteer time and contribute reasons to make this project possible: HUGE Thanks to everyone!

For more information, visit:  http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.350reasons.org/

Sources: Rising Tide North America, GAIA, Carbon Trade Watch and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

On Sept. 22, in a speech to 100 world leaders gathered at the United Nations to discuss climate change, President Barack Obama declared the U.S. “determined to act.”

But at the same time, word began to circulate on Capitol Hill that the Senate might be equally determined not to vote on the climate bill any time soon.

“We are going to have a busy, busy time the rest of this year,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We still have next year to complete things, if we have to.”

The bill is bogged down in part because of contentious and extended negotiations over health care. But to a greater degree, it is stalled because it is so flawed.

Indeed, the House bill is so bad that even those who supported it did so reluctantly. During the House debate, my friend Denis Hayes,president of the Bullitt Foundation, board chairman of the International Earth Day Network and veteran of many a legislativebattle wrote a column that offered four strong reasons to reject the bill and then concluded, “If I were in Congress, I would hold my nose and vote for the Waxman-Markey bill.”

Happily, a new climate bill drafted by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., may soon be introduced that wouldn’t require us to hold our noses atall. Indeed, it could change both the nature of the debate and  its outcome.

Cantwell brings impressive credentials to the climate issue. Elected in 2000, she chairs the Senate Democrats 20/20 Energy Independence campaign and co-chairs the Apollo Alliance. Among her legislative achievements are the passage of a bill to prevent energy-market manipulation and the successfully blocking of an attempt by GOP Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to allow drilling on the Arctic National wildlife refuge.

In its introductory text, Cantwell’s Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal [3] (CLEAR) Act of 2009 promises “simplicity, transparency and equity.” It delivers on all counts.

The bill is blessedly brief, 32 pages compared to the mammoth 1,427 pages in the Waxman-Markey bill (a number that will only grow in the Senate). You can actually sit down and read CLEAR in one sitting and understand how its pieces fit together.

Upstream vs. Downstream

Cantwell’s approach to greenhouse-gas reductions is fundamentally different from Waxman-Markey. Rather than focus on carbon emissions, she concentrates on carbon inputs.

CLEAR limits the quantity of fossil carbon allowed to enter the U.S. economy. In other words, rather than requiring a downstream power plant to reduce its CO2 emissions, the bill requires the upstream coal, natural gas and oil companies that supply the power plant to limit their carbon production.

By shifting the responsibility upstream to the wellhead or mine orport of entry, the bill slashes administrative costs to a fraction of what they will be under Waxman-Markey. Only a few thousand energy-producing or importing firms would be covered, versus the hundreds of thousands or more entities covered under Waxman-Markey.

Peter Dorman, at the blog EconoSpeak, noted in May:

The decision to issue permits on an industry-by-industry basis — to cap the uses of carbon fuels rather than their sources [invites] … never-ending bickering over who is allowed to emit how much. Every little tweak of the system — whether to include freight transportation or agriculture [which crops!] — has to be hammered out separately. Reductions are calculated from a baseline, but there are acres of wriggle room about how to measure who emitted how much in the base year, and therefore how much should be reduced tomorrow. Enforcement is complex, expensive and full of loopholes.

Auctions vs. Allowances

Focusing upstream allows Cantwell to avoid this administrative swamp. It also allows her to do what Waxman-Markey should have done: require carbon polluters to pay for their pollution. CLEAR requires carbon producers to buy 100 percent of the carbon shares they need.  None are given away. Waxman-Markey, on the other hand, gives away 85 percent.

The Cantwell way of dealing with the question of how U.S. companies that must use more expensive fuels can compete internationally is also much simpler and transparent than that contained in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Here’s a brief summary of the Waxman-Markey strategy: U.S. exporters will receive free carbon allowances in the form of rebated charges for 2012-2025. Under certain conditions, U.S. producers of finished goods could also receive rebates, if producers petition for coverage and the EPA determines they meet statutory criteria and should be covered.

The EPA would create a pool of international reserve allowances separate from the allowances domestic entities must use to comply with their cap-and-trade obligations. Importers must purchase 85 percent ofthese allowances from countries that have an emissions-reduction commitment as stringent as that of the U.S.. There is an exemption from this provision if the country is listed by the U.N. as a “least developed” developing country, or if it is responsible for less than 0.5 percent of global emissions.

Got all that?

Here’s how CLEAR addresses the same problem. Impose fees on the carbon used in production processes for commodities imported into theU.S. Lift the fee for countries that have adopted comparable limits to fossil carbon use. Sounds easier, right?

Limited vs. Unlimited Trading

CLEAR allows for carbon trading, but unlike Waxman-Markey, whichcreates an elaborate — some would say Byzantine — carbon-trading architecture that promises much mischief, CLEAR puts significant limits on trading.

As befits a congressional leader who has fought against speculation and price manipulation in the energy and financial markets, Cantwell has included in her bill many mechanisms to prevent hoarding and speculation. There are monthly carbon auctions. Carbon shares expireafter two years. No entity can buy significantly more carbon shares than it needs. Any sale of carbon allowance must be offered to an eligible “first seller.” All relevant transaction dates, carbon share quantities and prices must be made available publicly.

Universal Refunds vs. Set Asides

Still another fundamental difference between Waxman-Markey and CLEAR is revealed in their approaches to the equity issue.

Restricting carbon will raise carbon prices, and thus general prices. This will disproportionately burden the poor. Waxman-Markey deals with this by setting aside 15 percent of the carbon allowances to assist households that can prove they are sufficiently poor.

CLEAR makes consumer equity a central consideration rather than an afterthought. Three-quarters of the proceeds from the carbon auction will be refunded on an equal per capita basis to any legal resident ofthe U.S. The remaining 25 percent will go into a fund that can be used for many purposes: clean-energy development, compensation for dislocated workers, climate-change mitigation and adaptation.

The creation of a direct per capita refund achieves several ends.

In terms of equity, the refund will offset the pocketbook impact ofany energy price increases for most low- and moderate-income households. Indeed, my colleague John Bailey at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance has estimated that the net impact may well be redistributive, because the poor use less energy and buy fewer carbon-intensive goods than the rich. Thus, any increase in carbon-related prices would be more than offset by the receipt of their carbon-related dividends.

Politically, a direct universal refund could generate the popular support for a greenhouse-gas reduction bill that has been so conspicuously lacking to date. One reason for the tepid support is that Americans know that when you put a price on carbon you will raise prices on all products.

Waxman-Markey tries to minimize price increases by giving polluters a huge number of free carbon allowances and directing them to use these to limit price hikes. In a May memorandum, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., called the three largest categories of allowances: “Protection from Electricity Price Increases,” “Protection from Home Heating Oil Increases” and “Protection from Natural Gas Price Increases.”

One could say that Waxman-Markey has given polluters about 75 percent of the carbon allowances in the expectation that they would use these to restrain price increases. It is a messy and largely unmonitorable process. The public is understandably skeptical.

Cantwell on the other hand, accepts that putting a value on carbon will increase prices. She doesn’t need to dissemble to the American people on that important point.

Her bill holds the majority of U.S. households harmless by giving all households 75 percent of the money raised by the carbon auction. Such a strategy is not only much simpler, it might generate an additional carbon reduction through changes in personal behavior since the less carbon an individual household uses the greater its net income from the refund.

A universal refund strategy has still another advantage: It promises to maintain popular support even if carbon prices rise significantly, because as the price of carbon increases, the carbon refund will grow commensurately.

Private vs. Common Ownership

A universal refund reflects a fundamentally different philosophical approach to pollution than Waxman-Markey. By putting a value on carbon, the Cantwell and Waxman-Markey bills put a value on the carbon-absorptive capacity of the sky. The question then is, who owns that suddenly valuable capacity? Or as the title of the path-breakingbook by Peter Barnes asks, Who Owns the Sky?

Barnes persuasively argues that we all do, equally. By giving companies essentially free pollution rights, Waxman-Markey, in essence, says that polluters own the sky. By requiring polluters to pay for pollution rights and returning 75 percent of that revenue directly to all on an equal per capita basis, CLEAR says that we all own the sky. The sky is a commons. A discussion about the role of the commons may be one of the most significant outcomes of CLEAR. (For more discussion seeonthecommons.org [4].)

One other feature favorably distinguishes the Cantwell bill from Waxman-Markey that deserves mention. CLEAR does not ban EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. Waxman-Markey does. Why would we want to strip the executive branch of its ability to regulate greenhouse gases at this historic moment?

CLEAR has yet to be introduced. Cantwell has circulated it for comment and reportedly has gotten push-back from a number of environmental organizations. Some oppose it simply because it may delay a vote on Waxman-Markey in the Senate. They appear willing to support any climate bill, no matter how bad.

Others offer more substantive and valid criticisms.

One is that Cantwell’s bill requires far less greenhouse-gas reductions in the early years than Waxman-Markey. Waxman-Markey requires a 17 percent reduction from a 2005 baseline. CLEAR requires a 1.5 percent reduction from a 2012 baseline by 2020. Cantwell should increase the required reductions.

However, the spread between CLEAR and Waxman-Markey’s effective carbon reductions might not be as wide as the numbers suggest. Some reports estimate that the combination of free allowances and offsets in Waxman-Markey could limit domestic carbon reductions to as little as 2 percent by 2020.

The economic collapse also may narrow the gap. The Energy Information Administration recently announced that total U.S.greenhouse gas emissions might be 8.5 percent lower by the end of 2009 than they were in 2005 and anticipates a very slow increase over the next two years. Thus, CLEAR’s baseline of 2012 may well be significantly lower than Waxman-Markey’s baseline of 2005.

The second substantive criticism of the Cantwell bill is that it establishes a safety-valve carbon price, something Waxman-Markey does not do. That is true.

CLEAR sets an initial minimum carbon price of $7 per ton and a maximum price of $21. But the Cantwell bill increases both the minimum and the maximum prices by about 10 percent per year after 2012, which means by 2020 they could be close to $14 at the low end and $42 per ton at the high end. The estimated price of carbon under Waxman-Markey in 2020 is $15-$20 per ton.

Some environmentalists offer a third objection. Cantwell’s bill has no dedicated allowance for clean energy, while Waxman-Markey dedicates 10-15 percent for this purpose. Again, that is true.

CLEAR offers 25 percent of the auction proceeds for several purposes. Clean-energy advocates will have to fight with those wanting money to mitigate dislocation impacts from high-priced carbon, or for adaptation or mitigation strategies. I expect they would end up with about the same total revenue as under Waxman-Markey.

I hope we can collectively encourage Cantwell to introduce her bill, even without the co-sponsors she would like. Her bill represents a fundamentally different philosophical and strategic approach to fighting climate change: simple, transparent, equitable and, I would add, effective. That approach deserves to be part of the national debate on climate change.

The New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance – newrules.org

Sources: Alternet, Grist and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Leading refuse operators in Florida, New Jersey, Idaho and California have opened new compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling stations to support deployment of their growing fleets of CNG refuse collection trucks. The new CNG stations were designed and built by Clean Energy Fuels Corp. for Choice Environmental Services, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Central Jersey Waste, Hamilton Township, NJ; Allied Waste Services, Boise, ID; and South County Sanitary Company, San Luis Obispo, CA.

Raymond P. Burke, Vice President, Clean Energy, said, “CNG trash trucks reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23% compared to conventional diesel-powered models, and are quieter. CNG fuel costs significantly less, on average, than diesel. Refuse companies and agencies throughout America are adopting natural gas fuel for both environmental and economic reasons, and we congratulate Choice Environmental, Central Jersey Waste, Allied Waste and South County Sanitary for their exemplary leadership efforts.”

Choice Environmental — Florida

The new Choice Environmental Services CNG station supports South Florida’s first privately owned fleet of clean green natural gas refuse trucks. The Choice CNG fleet serves commercial and residential customers in the City of Fort Lauderdale. The company plans to expand CNG truck deployment throughout its service area, which encompasses Palm Beach, Broward, Dade and Collier counties.

Central Jersey Waste — New Jersey

In a precedent-setting move, Central Jersey Waste and Recycling has become the first refuse company in New Jersey to convert a portion of its truck fleet operations to clean-burning natural gas fuel. Central Jersey contracted with Clean Energy to build a private time-fill CNG truck fueling station at its Trenton location. The company financed a portion of station construction and CNG truck purchase costs through Clean Energy Finance, which offers creative funding options and support for Clean Energy customers.

Allied Waste Services — Idaho

Boise-based Allied Waste Services, a Republic Services company, has opened the first CNG fuel station with public access in Idaho. Allied Waste will use the new station to fuel its growing fleet of CNG refuse trucks. Allied contracts with the City of Boise to provide all solid waste and recycling services for the Greater Boise area. The new CNG station, designed and built for Allied Waste by Clean Energy, will open for public access early in 2010, making it possible for individuals, fleet operators and local governments to switch to CNG fuel.

South County Sanitary – California

South County Sanitary Company, a Waste Connections company, contracts with the San Luis Obispo, CA Integrated Waste Management Authority to provide trash collection and recycling services to area residents and businesses. South County Sanitary has opened its first private Clean Energy CNG fueling station, which is dedicated to supporting the company’s fast-growing CNG truck fleet. South County has announced plans to transition its entire refuse fleet to natural gas power, citing the benefits of its cleaner, cheaper, quieter operation.

Sources: Clean Energy,  US Gas Vehicles, Environmental Expert and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

For years California has courted a reputation as an eco-friendly, green-minded leader, but the state now finds its most basic program of recycling beverage bottles and cans mired in debt and litigation.

Dozens of supermarket recycling sites have shut down recently as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators spar over how to close a massive gap in the program’s budget.   California’s 23-year-old recycling program, managed by the Department of Conservation through fees charged to beverage buyers, has been hurt this year by recession, rising redemption rates and raids of its coffers to help ease the state’s budget woes.

Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Legislature concede that the program, which collected more than 16 billion beverage containers last year, is in fiscal distress – but each has rejected the other’s solution.  “This is an important program for California and we are currently looking at ways to improve funding in this down economy,” said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola.

Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste, a nonprofit advocacy group, said consumers are going to find it increasingly difficult to recycle their beverage containers.  “The net result is likely to be a drop in the recycling rate,” he said.  Shoppers remain entitled to their nickel or dime deposits for returning glass, plastic or aluminum beverage containers, but many consumers could be forced to drive farther, wait longer or comply with shorter center operating hours.

The number of supermarket parking-lot recyclers has grown gradually in recent years to about 2,100. But two of the largest operators, Tomra Pacific and NexCycle, announced the shutdown of about 90 centers recently, laying off more than 100 workers.  Tomra, which projects losses of $9 million this year, has joined with two other firms to sue the state, seeking to “stop the dismantling” of the program. Exacerbating problems, the scrap value of aluminum cans has plummeted in the past year, and the market for other containers has struggled.

“If consumers can no longer find convenient outlets for recycling used bottles and cans, they are more likely to go back to their old ways of discarding them in landfills – or worse, on streets, beaches and other property,” the lawsuit said.  “This will essentially end the Recycling Program as we have known it,” the suit said.

By law, supermarkets not served by parking-lot recyclers are supposed to either pay the state $100 a day – only one store is doing so – or redeem the containers themselves, but many do not.  In a telephone check of 15 such supermarkets Friday, only six accept empty cans and bottles. 

Many supermarkets are not prepared to pick up the slack from closures of parking-lot recyclers because of the time it would take to count bags of containers and the health and safety implications of doing so where food is sold, said Dave Heylen of the California Grocers Association.

“It’s something that would be quite a hardship,” he said.

Department of Conservation officials declined to discuss Tomra’s lawsuit or allegations of harm. But state officials clearly are not trying to kill the program because both Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have tried to intervene, thus far unsuccessfully.

In May, state finance officials projected a $162 million deficit for the program by July 2010, which sparked across-the-board cuts that affected subsidies paid to collection centers but not to consumers who redeem beverages.

Schwarzenegger’s relief proposal focused on targeted cuts and on compressing subsidiary efforts, such as for public education and recycling incentives, into a new program of competitive grants.

The Legislature rejected Schwarzenegger’s plan during budget talks and crafted its own proposal, Senate Bill 402, which would have relied on expansion rather than contraction to bolster the program.

In vetoing SB 402, Schwarzenegger said that consumers would have been hurt by provisions to double the fee on 20-ounce sodas, from 5 to 10 cents, and to expand the kinds of beverages and types of containers accepted.

“I recognize that without this bill there is an immediate hardship,” his veto message said, but “the lasting effects of this bill are far worse.”

As a stopgap, Schwarzenegger said he would order emergency regulations to require beverage distributors to submit payments to the state every two months, not three, which is expected to generate a one-time infusion of about $100 million.

California’s recycling program partly has been a victim of its own success, because each redeemed container takes a nickel or dime from funds for subsidies, outreach or operational funds.

Redemption rates have risen from 67 percent in 2007 to 74 percent in 2008, and to 85 percent for the first six months of 2009.

Meanwhile, beverage sales from January to June were 325 million containers less – about 3 percent – than for the same time span in 2008.

Bottom line? Projected revenue has dropped by about $74 million the past year, from $1.15 billion to a projected $1.086 billion.

But Chuck Riegle of Tomra said the most painful blow was self-inflicted by the state: Politicians have raided recycling coffers, through loans, to help balance the state budget.

Tomra’s suit seeks to force repayment of about $415 million that otherwise would have been used for recycling.

Four times this decade, the state has borrowed beverage funds, most recently during the current fiscal year when more than $99 million was diverted to the state’s general fund.

The deadline for paying back $286 million borrowed in 2002 and 2003 initially was June 2009, but it was extended three years ago to 2013. Only $30 million has been repaid, records show.

In borrowing fee revenue, the state requires that no harm be done to the affected program, yet more than half of this year’s projected $162 million deficit consisted of the $99 million loan to bolster the state’s general fund.

Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said the multiple raids on recycling funds, the lack of timely repayment and the harm caused to collection centers raise questions about whether fees were spent illegally.

“It changes what otherwise might be characterized as a legitimate fee into a tax of questionable legality,” Coupal said.

State finance spokesman H.D. Palmer disagreed, saying that the program was projected to have an $81 million balance when legislation was signed in February to borrow for the next fiscal year. Changing market conditions made the deficit evident months later, in a May budget revision, Palmer said.

“This is just one example of the dramatic fluctuations we’ve seen in the state’s fiscal picture as a result of the recession,” he said.

Schwarzenegger’s veto message for SB 402 said he supports repaying past loans and banning any future loans from recycling coffers to the state’s general fund.

Sources: Fresno Bee and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

 Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource