Climate Technology

Lenders offering mortgages that reward energy efficiency

Shocking news: an element of everyday American life is going green! Yes, now you too can pay off your house with a green mortgage. While many lenders have long had offers of bigger loans and discounts to buyers whose homes meet energy-efficiency standards, such plans are now being marketed more aggressively, and many homebuyers are […]

‘Carbon-friendly’ utilities may not necessarily be in the public interest

Following the discussion under David's latest post about Edwards' position on carbon capture at coal plants, I thought it appropriate to point out a few things about the electric business that are critical to this debate -- but not widely appreciated.

An electric utility is a weird amalgam of lots of historic political philosophies -- most of which are in direct contradiction to modern ideas, but are difficult to repeal.

According to the modern pro-market ideal, businesses should have profit incentives in competitive markets, so that Adam Smith's invisible hand will create consumer value. But to an early 20th-century regulator (who wrote the rules under which most modern electric utilities were formed), certain public goods were so important as to mandate government intervention. (One of the best examples is Einstein, who thought that Karl Marx had some really good ideas, in large part because he saw the problems of the world so clearly that he couldn't conceive of an unregulated market rising to address them. See here.)

This is indicative of an era in which socialism was a live concept rather than historical record, when regulators and academics could debate the pros and cons of central planning without any evidence of the excesses such systems could create. It was also an era when the excesses of the mercantilist Gilded Age were becoming evident, and smart, well-intentioned folks were looking for a better way.

Rep. Markey asks the Federal Trade Commission to investigate voluntary carbon offsets

Rep. Markey has asked the FTC to investigate whether or not the sale of voluntary carbon offsets violates the Guides for the Use of Evaluating Environmental Marketing Claims, as laid out by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has responded and agreed to commence an investigation, noting that:

The FTC staff has been monitoring this nascent market as part of the Commission's ongoing consumer protection programs in the energy and environmental areas. The carbon offset market poses potential consumer protection challenges. Carbon offset claims may present a heightened potential for deception because it is very difficult, if not impossible, to verify the accuracy of the seller's claims. At the same time, the sale of carbon offset products afford interested consumers the opportunity to participate in the market for products and services that may reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the benefits that this developing market may provide, we want to better understand the market to avoid acting in a way that could restrain innovation or harm consumers.

For full details, see here.

There is clearly a potential for fraud and cause for investigation, but my personal guess is that this is also a good example of the cost of not participating in Kyoto. The accounting for GHG offsets is really complicated, and the formal, audit-worthy work on that topic is now being done in London and Brussels. Voluntary markets are an attempt to bridge that gap, but will never carry the rigor of a Big-4 audited statement.

In any event, this will be worth following to see how the story develops.

Founder of The Body Shop dies of a brain hemorrhage at age 64

Anita Roddick, the pioneering founder of The Body Shop, has died. Roddick was dubbed the “Queen of Green” for her trailblazing environmentally friendly, humane business practices that made her a leader in her native England and around the world. “Businesses have the power to do good,” Roddick wrote on the company’s website. Roddick opened her […]

Ultracapacitor company claims it will revolutionize electric cars

The AlwaysOn Network has selected its GoingGreen 100 — the 100 top companies in greentech, based on "innovation, market potential, commercialization, stakeholder value creation, and media attention or ‘buzz.’" Here’s the category I’m watching: Energy Storage A123 Systems Bloom Energy Cobasys Deeya Energy EEStor GridPoint Jadoo Power Lilliputian Systems ZPower (Gridpoint was the top company […]

Norway disallows manufacturers from advertising cars as “green”

We’ve got a thing for Norway — really, nothing beats a good fjord. And nobody can literalize like the Norwegians, who next month will begin prohibiting automobile manufacturers from advertising their vehicles as “green,” “clean,” or “environmentally friendly.” Says one national official, “If someone says their car is more ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ than others […]

Wal-Mart’s eco-initiatives turning Arkansas into sustainability hotspot

Attention shoppers: we bring you news of the latest sustainability hotspot, none other than Fayetteville, Ark. Green start-ups are flocking to town, the University of Arkansas has established an Applied Sustainability Center, and the mayor rides an electric bike to work. Why? Because of a certain retail giant whose headquarters lies half an hour away. […]

Coca-Cola announces big recycling initiatives

Speaking around gulps of carbonated, corn-syrupy beverage, Coca-Cola executives announced two environmental initiatives this week. By next year, the company plans to redesign its 20-ounce bottle to use 5 percent less plastic, and will open a gigantic recycling plant in South Carolina. Coca-Cola currently recycles or reuses about 10 percent of its U.S.-sold plastic bottles; […]

Washington state caps the cost to pollute, rather than the pollution

The Sightline Institute (formerly Northwest Environment Watch) picks up a Seattle P-I report on yet another counterproductive incentive: making it cheaper to pollute in bulk.

The more hazardous waste you produce in Washington, the better the deal you can get from the state. Companies that make chemicals, oil, paint, paper and airplanes must pay a Hazardous Waste Planning Fee for the toxic substances that they pump into the air and water or send to landfills. But because the fee is capped, the top five producers pay less than $8 a ton for their dangerous waste, whereas companies producing smaller amounts can pay up to $250 a ton.

The high price of electricity deregulation

In David Cay Johnston's NYT article "A New Push to Regulate Power Costs," he writes about the fact that many states are rolling back their deregulatory initiatives. The main reason, he says, is price.

Ahh, price. That magic number at the nexus of supply and demand. The problem with price in electricity markets is that it is not determined by supply and demand, as in a free, deregulated market -- even in those states where there was, supposedly, deregulation.

In fact, we've long argued that deregulatory initiatives, as they were designed and implemented, had nothing to do with what most people understand as "deregulation" at all. Johnston points out that retail price controls, artificially induced competition on the wholesale side, and same old-same same-old metering does not a free market make. As Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute says, "Just calling something a market does not make it a market."