Brave New Leaf

Do you know your area's climate change plan?

As I've been greening my own life, it's become increasingly important to me to understand how my city, county, state, and nation are addressing the issues of peaking oil and climate change.

Most of the information for my local government is online, so it hasn't been too difficult to investigate and figure out what my government representatives are up to. Let's have a look.

The City of Bellevue
Bellevue is a city experiencing a period of epic growth. Looking out my window, the skyline is dotted with dozens of cranes cranking out endless numbers of skyscrapers. New restaurants and businesses are popping up almost daily.

Because of this, I'm not shocked that Bellevue has been a little reticent on the matter of climate change. If you go to the city website, their environmental section covers a number of pressing issues: water conservation, flood prevention, saving salmon, etc. But there is no information on Bellevue's emissions or how it plans to cut them.

A further look online shows that the Bellevue City Council refused to sign the global warming plan at the Conference of US Mayors last year, prefering to go with their own version of a global warming plan. If they are putting one in action, it's not in the public eye.

Clearly, Bellevue needs some more encouragement to focus on the environment.

Neighboring Seattle does much better. They have a full climate change plan you can read here.

King County
King County is a completely different story. The richness of information about King County's global warming plan is astonishing.

If you live in King County, I would strongly recommend perusing the 2007 King County Climate Plan. Some highlights:

King County produces .08% of worldwide emissions. To compare, King County has .03% of the world's population. Likewise, Washington contributes .31% emissions and has .1% of the world population.

The projected impact of climate change on the King County area is spelled out in an extremely detailed way. Forecasted weather changes include:

• More rain in the west
• Less rain in the east
• Less snow in the mountains

Resulting in:

• More floods in the winter
• More droughts in the summer
• More droughts in the East
• Widespread issues with ecosystem, agriculture, and disease
• And then, of course, there's the potential impact of sea rise if the ice shelf collapses...

King County's goal is to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. They present several ideas and projects that directly relate to the goal, many with immediate timelines.

It shouldn't be shocking, but the biggest emissions fight King County faces is not electricity or industry or landfills, but transportation. There are more cars on the road every year in King County, and more miles driven every year. The County is going to have to get clever in figuring out how to face this.

The State of Washington
Governor Christine Gregoire has taken many material steps to committing Washington to a green path. The Washington State Climate Change site has a wealth of information about the analysis and planning the State government has done to address the issue

Of significant interest are the emissions projections, where again, you can see the problem for Washington State is transportation.

The other fantastic read is the recently released report by the Climate Advisory Team called "A Comprehensive Approach Towards Reducing Greenhouse Gases in Washington State".

To summarize it, Washington States goals are as follows:

• By 2020, reduce emissions to 1990 levels. By 2035, reduce 25% below that, By 2050, reduce 50% below that.
• By 2020, increase green jobs to 25,000 (this legislation passed the house yesterday).
• By 2020, reduce $$ spent on imported fuel by 20%.

At a high level, here are some of the ways they recommend we achieve this:

• Implement a cap-and-trade with clear emissions reporting
• Integrate emissions analysis into all projects and decisions, especially development.
• Redesign communities to have less dependency on Single Occupancy Vehicles
• Make vehicles as efficient as possible, use alternative fuels
• Focus infrastructure on clean transit
• Upgrade local buildings to be energy efficient
• Deliver energy from less coal-dependent sources
• Keep forests and farms healthy,planting more = more stored carbon.

Do you know your area's climate change plan?

Cap and Trade Programs Explained

There's a tremendous amount of talk lately about Emissions Cap and Trade programs. All of the major presidential candidates have a national program at the center of their environmental proposals. But the concept is new to most US citizens.

How cap and trade works
Here's a grossly dumbed down overview of how cap-and-trade programs work:

First, a central authority, like a government, sets a limit (a cap!) on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Let's use carbon in this example.

Then, companies and other groups are issued emission permits that allot them a certain number of carbon credits.

Over time, the government can work towards their carbon goals by lowering the number of carbon credits that are available.

At the same time, companies that can cheaply reduce their emissions can choose to do so.

These companies can make additional money by selling or trading their excess carbon credits to other companies that need them. Companies that don't want to reduce their emissions have to consider the price of buying or trading credits from these other companies.

What this type of program ensures is that the most cost-effective emissions reductions happen the fastest, easing the burden of the change on the economy.

Cap and Trade Programs in Action

• The European Union runs the only mandatory carbon cap-and-trade system in the world, which begun in January 2005.
• The EU program is in-part modeled off a US cap-and-trade system focused on the gases that create acid rain.
• Australia's new government plans to start their carbon program in 2010.
• The Kyoto Protocol, which the US has not signed, includes a worldwide cap-and-trade program.

Cap and Trade: Coming soon to the US
Cap-and-trade programs are slowly coming to the US. In the absence of federal leadership, Washington, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have partnered with two Canadian provinces to form the Western Climate Initiative. This group is planning an independent cap-and-trade system across the region. Yesterday, Washington state passed important state legislation to lay the groundwork for program implementation.

In the Northeast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative would establish the first collective effort in America to adopt mandatory controls for carbon dioxide emissions. The governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont signed a memorandum to create a cap-and-trade program covering all power plants that includes a trading program.

Cap and Trade Concerns
There are concerns over the complexity of the cap-and-trade systems. The programs will force difficult accounting practices on business, and difficult oversight on government to ensure that businesses are reporting their carbon emissions accurately. Still, out of all possible carbon taxes and programs designed to cutback emissions, US businesses would rather adopt this type of program than any other, because it makes it possible to balance environment and economic concerns.

Similarly, environmental groups worry that cap-and-trade systems won't go far enough in forcing businesses to cut back emissions at the rate required. 

Taxing Cars to Tax the Fuel?

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently announced a system for taxing Washington automobiles according to their fuel efficiency.

Senate Bill 6923 proposes that consumers would pay a yearly surcharge for their vehicle, based on the EPA's ratings of a car's efficiency.

The owner of a Prius Hybrid, for example, would pay $60/year in taxes, whereas a Hummer owner would be looking at $180/year. 25% of the money would go to fund greener transportation initiatives.

On one hand, it makes sense. Seattle's biggest emission problem is transportation. Our energy grid is relatively clean, and the Seattle area tends to have low usage of electricity and water. But we are addicted to long drives in big cars.

On the other hand, I'm not sure the bill makes much sense. Why are Prius owners, the most fuel-efficient automobile you can own, being taxed at all? And why tax at a fixed rate? What if I only take my Hummer out once a month for a short drive? What if I drive a Toyota Corolla, but I'm a hypermiler, and can get 100MPG out of it? What if I start feeding my suburban biodiesel?

If we're going to penalize vehicle fuel efficiency, shouldn't we be taxing the fuel?

Read more at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/350336_carbon07.html

Off we go a-caucusing: Hillary vs. Obama

Tomorrow, I am going to attend my first ever Presidential Caucus. I live in the state of Washington, and given the deadlocked nature of the Democratic presidential race, I feel it's important to go and express a point of view.

I've never been to a caucus before, so I'm not really certain what to expect. I'm also not sure yet who I'll support.

Obviously, one of the important things I'm looking for in a presidential candidate is strength and leadership on independent energy and climate change. Trouble is, Obama and Clinton have very little difference in their positions on these issues. Their published plans to address the issue are extremely similar. How to decide?

If you can't distinguish on the policy, distinguish on who is more likely to execute it. I break it down as follows:

Who "gets it" better?
If you dig deep, neither has really been a leader on the issue. Hillary is probably the more knowledgeable candidate, and can jabber in the political lexicon as well as anyone. Here's an interesting interview of her in action talking with Al Gore in Congress about the carbon cap & trade system:

Obama's rhetoric seems more grand. I don't know if he personally understands the issue as well, but he certainly sees solving it as a priority, and is committed to bringing the smartest minds around to bear on the problem.

From this direct comparison, Hillary seems like a winner, right? Hold up. Where does the environment and energy independence fit in Hillary's agenda? What's the priority?

A question of priorities
Hillary has a broad swath of issues, including environment, listed on her website. In interviews and speeches, sometimes she lists it amongst her top 4-5 goals for the presidency, sometimes it is omitted entirely (depending on the audience). While I don't doubt it's a priority for her, she has a lot on her agenda, and it's unclear exactly where energy/environment fits.

Obama has been consistent in speaking to the environment as a "top 3" goal for him. Asked by Newsweek what he wants to accomplish by the end of his Presidency, he said “end(ing) the war. . .universal health care . . . and we will have a bold energy agenda that drastically reduces our emissions of greenhouse gases while creating a green engine that can drive growth for many years to come.” That is a definitive answer I can get behind.

Management Style: Autocratic vs. Democratic
Probably the ultimate decision between Hillary and Obama comes down to their management style. As somebody who has managed groups over a hundred people in the business world, I can testify that management is about two things: 1. getting things done, and 2. getting the right things done.

I have experienced both autocratic and democratic management styles several times in the workplace. Autocratic managers are keenly smart, and massive control freaks. They don't trust anybody but themselves to make the decisions. Their organization works like the military: they set the agenda, they give the orders, and everybody executes to that plan as best they can.

Certainly with an autocratic management style, things get done. The trouble is, the right things don't always get done. The manager is usually the furthest person away from the implementation details, so sometimes their vision is out-of-whack with reality. Other times, the vision is good, but because it's not shared or understood amongst the team, the vision gets lost in translation during implementation.

Bush was an autocratic leader. Clinton, though much more knowledgeable than Bush, will be as well. She is convinced that she knows best, no matter what the situation.

Democratic leaders are another beast entirely. They are consumed with consensus and making sure that everyone has a say in the project. They try to frame a problem initially, but invest a lot into blue-sky brainstorming and inclusive ideation to work through the complexity of a problem. As a result, their solutions are usually complex, but often very good and thorough.

The danger of a democratic leadership style is paralysis. As human beings, dissent and differing opinions will always exist. If consensus must be reached, and no leader exists to cut through conflicts, the entire process can get stuck. Allowing somebody to develop and express an opinion, and then squashing it and telling them we're going in another direction is a difficult management problem and can lead to ultimate dissension in the ranks.

In a nutshell, if the democratic leader gets the project done, it will certainly be the better solution. But sometimes democratic leaders simply can't get the job done.

Obama is a classic democratic leader. He is beloved by those that work with him. He is a master of consensus and compromise, but he has not proven he can get things done on a grand scale.

It's the difference between a corporate lawyer and a Wal-Mart board member as compared to a community organizer who also honed his political skills as a state senator dealing with the needs of a South Side Chicago district. It's the difference between top-down and bottom-up.

I believe that the right leader for the job fits between these two. They start off as democratic to reap the best of the ideas and then switch to hardcore autocratic once they've found them to ensure implementation happens. Can Obama use his top-notch mind to bridge the gap into a more hardcore manager when required? Can Hillary leverage her huge network of contacts to find the right solutions to the problems we face?

I think I've made up my mind who I'm going to caucus for. I'm not going to tell though. That'd be cheating. :)  I encourage you to think about what's important for you in a candidate and make a decision. And vote!!