Saturday, March 6, 2010

Africa’s First Large-Scale Forestry Project Under the Kyoto Protocol


New Carbon Finance Project Will Alleviate Poverty and Address Climate Change
Press Release No:2010/279/SDN

Contacts:

World Vision Australia – Bill Pheasant, + 61 3 9287 2282, bill.pheasant@worldvision.com.au

World Vision Ethiopia – Tamirat Yirgu, +521116 293349, tamirat_yirigu@wvi.org

World Bank Washington DC – Isabel Hagbrink, + 1 202-458-0422, ihagbrink@worldbank.org

NAIROBI, March 3 2010 -- On the margins of the annual Africa Carbon Forum, a new initiative to bring environmental and financial benefits to local communities in the impoverished highlands of Ethiopia was announced here today.

The Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project is Africa's first large-scale forestry project to be registered under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. It will bring both economic and social benefits to poor communities in Ethiopia as well as environmental benefits as the project will cut an estimated 880,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the next 30 years.

World Vision Australia CEO Tim Costello points to the Humbo Assisted Natural Regeneration Project, developed by the international development agency World Vision in partnership with the World Bank, as a highly successful example of reforestation that alleviates poverty while also addressing climate change.

“World Vision has been working with poor communities for more than 20 years to implement environmentally sustainable projects that create jobs and reduce poverty,” he said. “While the income from the carbon credits is a welcome bonus, other tangible benefits from the project come from building resilience against climate impacts.

The Humbo Project is the product of collaboration across organizations and continents, involving World Vision offices in Australia and Ethiopia, the World Bank, the Ethiopian Environment Protection Agency, as well as local and regional governments and the community. It has restored more than 2,700 hectares of degraded land in Humbo in south-western Ethiopia since 2007. Registration of the Project by the United Nations enables the future sale of over 338,000 tonnes worth of carbon credits (by 2017), of which the World Bank’s BioCarbonFund will purchase 165,000 tonnes worth of carbon credits.

The BioCarbon Fund is an initiative with public and private contributions. It purchases emission reductions from afforestation and reforestation projects under the CDM, as well as from land-use sector projects outside the CDM, such as projects that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and increase carbon sequestration in soils through improved agriculture practices.

The sale of carbon credits under the BioCarbon Fund will provide an income stream of more than US$700,000 to the local communities over a minimum of ten years. Further revenue will be available to the community from the sale of carbon credits not purchased by the World Bank as well as from the sale of timber products from designated woodlots in the Project.

The Humbo Project is the largest World Bank forestry project in Africa to gain CDM registration. “To date, Africa hosts less than 2 % of all registered CDM projects. Promotion of land-use and forestry projects in this region is key to changing the status quo. Without this, it will be difficult for a post-Kyoto climate regime to gain support from African countries. In this regard, the registration of this project has a special significance,” says Ms. Inger Andersen, Director, Sustainable Development (Africa Region) for the World Bank.

“We believe that this project will encourage project developers to scale up land–use and forestry initiatives in this region, thus allowing African countries to benefit from opportunities of growing carbon markets while providing local communities with additional social, economic and environmental benefits.”

World Vision Ethiopia, National Director, Ms. Tenagne Lemma, said the strengths of the Humbo Project had been publicly recognized by the Ethiopian Government on World Environment Day last year followed by the secondment of two World Vision field officers to the nation’s climate change negotiating team. The “Humbo model” was also being replicated in other World Vision projects across the country.

“The steep slopes of the project site had been cleared since the early 1970s, and with almost no remaining trees, erosion and mudslides were common in the rainy season,” she said. “This has now all changed.

“The multiplying benefits to the community through improved land management and the flow-on benefits to people’s health, food security and livelihoods surpassed our most optimistic expectations. Even more exciting than the carbon revenue is the income generated from the sale of fodder, forest fruits and eventually the selective harvest of wood products that contributes to household livelihoods and the local economy, and which will far exceed the carbon revenue.”

While conventional approaches to reforestation require the costly replanting of trees from nursery stock, over 90 percent of the Humbo Project area has been reforested using Farmer Managed Natural Forest Regeneration (FMNR), which encourages new growth from tree stumps previously felled but still living. Using this method, a vast ‘underground forest’ has been unearthed and indigenous, biodiverse forest species, some of which are endangered, have been restored to this region.

To date, thirteen forestry projects have been registered under the CDM, and this is the fifth LULUCF project to be registered in the World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund. The development of such land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects is crucial, particularly on a continent that generally has not seen the realization of a large number of CDM projects.

The majority of Ethiopia’s 80 million people depend on agriculture for their living, which accounts for 50 percent of GDP and 80 percent of total employment. World Vision has worked in the Humbo area of Ethiopia since the great famine of 1984-85 when half a million people died.

For more information on the BioCarbon Fund visit:

http://www.wbcarbonfinance.org

For more information on the African Carbon Forum, please visit: http://www.africacarbonforum.com/2009/english/index.htm

ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. Sale

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- 02/19/10 -- ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. (TSX VENTURE: ESR) (the "Company" or "ERA"), is pleased to announce that the private placement previously announced, October 14th 2009, closed on February 17th 2010. The private placement consisted of 7,360,000 common shares at a price of CAD$0.75 per share for gross proceeds of CAD$5,520,000. The sole subscriber was Forest Carbon Group AG ("FCG") an affiliate of HEAG Sudhessische Energie AG ("HSE"), a German energy and infrastructure company based in Darmstadt, Germany. FCG now owns an aggregate of 7,360,000 shares which constitute 29.9% of the issued capital of the Company. No finder's fee was paid in connection with the private placement. Shareholders' approval for the placement was obtained via a consent resolution of at least 50% plus 1 of the shareholders of the Company.

Under the terms of the private placement, the Company has granted FCG a pre-emptive right to purchase up to 30% of any equity financings that the Company may from time to time undertake subject to some customary exceptions and adjustments; and a right of first refusal to participate through financing or otherwise in certain types of projects. Both the pre-emptive right and the participation right will expire at the earlier of five (5) years from the Closing and the date FCG no longer owns at least 20% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company on a non-diluted basis.

The shares issued pursuant to the private placement are subject to a hold period expiring June 18, 2010.

Effective February 17th 2010, the Company increased the number of its board members from five (5) to six (6) members and appointed FCG's nominee, Mr. Holger Mayer as the sixth board member. Mr. Mayer is the director of Finance, Human Resources and Sales for HSE. Its subsidiary, ENTEGA Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG, is one of Germany's largest suppliers of green power. As a director of FCG, Mr. Mayer is responsible for the financial and legal aspects of project development. Mr. Mayer studied law in Tubingen and Stuttgart, as well as Business Administration at the Berufsakademie Stuttgart.

Robert Falls, CEO of ERA commented, "We cannot overstate the importance of this Private Placement, nor the strength of the relationship it underscores. Built on a foundation of seasoned professionals, ERA has pioneered the forest carbon offset space and developed into a significant international player in the industry, having capacity in the full range of project sourcing, development, implementation. ERA has become a leader in offset sales and brokering to both large companies and smaller organizations that have made a commitment to support climate mitigation and ecosystem restoration and protection. HSE is a well established company and its affiliate FCG will not only benefit from this heritage but use its marketing capacity to engage large European corporations in forest carbon offset programming. Having Mr. Mayer join ERA's board will add a high level of business acumen to ERA's organization."

Holger Mayer, director of FCG and CFO of HSE, declared: "The foundation of Forest Carbon Group and the strategic stake it has taken in ERA is another consequent step for HSE to move from being part of the problem of the climate crisis to be part of the solution. Afforestation of natural forests and forest protection are indispensable to solving the climate crisis, maintaining biodiversity and guaranteeing the sustainable existence of humanity. Together, FCG and ERA will be able to offer access to large scale, high quality forest projects that fit the demands of companies in need of compensating emissions that are still unavoidable for either technical or economical reasons."

About The Forest Carbon Group.

The Forest Carbon Group offers companies tailor made solutions for climate neutral products and processes. For this purpose it helps companies to reduce their own emissions voluntarily or to compensate for them with forest protection. The Forest Carbon Group identifies, develops, finances and monitors forestry projects for the voluntary carbon market and supplies its clients with forest carbon offsets. It invests exclusively in reforestation projects and schemes to protect still existing natural forests. The forest carbon offsets that are achieved as a result are securitised and issued in the form of so called VERs (Verified or Voluntary Emission Reductions) and CERs (Certified Emissions Reductions). The Forest Carbon Group was founded in 2009; the shareholders are the German utility company HSE and the consultancy firm BCC - Business Communications Consulting via its WBZ Beteiligungs- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH. The company's headquarters are in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Additional information on The Forest Carbon Group can be found at www.forestcarbongroup.ag or by contacting contact@forestcarbongroup.de.

About ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd.

ERA is a Canadian based pioneer in forest-based carbon offset programs and project development. Through its subsidiary, ERA Ecosystem Restoration Associates Inc., ERA produces significant, measurable carbon sequestration benefits that are validated and verified to international standards and sold to purchasers interested in offsetting their greenhouse gas footprints as a means of mitigating the effects of climate change. ERA is producing offsets from the company's "Community Ecosystem Restoration Program" (CERP) in the Lower Fraser Valley, near Vancouver, British Columbia. ERA is also developing projects in Africa, South America and the United States. ERA has generated ISO validated and verified Voluntary Emission Reductions (VERs) from the CERP project; to supply clients and offset users that include: HSE, Rolling Stone Magazine, Shell Canada Ltd., Air Canada, the Motion Pictures Producers Industry Association, and the Globe Foundation.

Additional information on ERA can be found on the corporate website www.eracarbonoffsets.com or by contacting investor@eracarbonoffsets.com.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of ERA CARBON OFFSETS LTD.

Robert Falls, Chief Executive Officer

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS: This document includes forward-looking statements as well as historical information. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, the continued advancement of the company's general business development, research development and the company's development of forest-based carbon offsets. When used in this document, the words "anticipate", "believe", "estimate", "expect", "intent", "may", "project", "plan", "should" and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements. Although ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. believes that their expectations reflected in these forward looking statements are reasonable, such statements involve risks and uncertainties and no assurance can be given that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ from these forward-looking statements include fluctuations in the marketplace for the sale of carbon credits, the inability to implement corporate strategies, the ability to obtain financing and other risks disclosed in our filings made with Canadian Securities Regulators.

NEITHER TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

Contacts:
ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd.
Kyle Stevenson
Investor Relations
(604) 687 1779
investor@eracarbonoffsets.com
www.eracarbonoffsets.com



Read more: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/forest-carbon-group-ag-purchases,1171566.shtml#ixzz0hSsG1dk0

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Private equity investors urged to step up on climate change

London, 4 March: Private equity investors are the target of a guide on the risks and opportunities posed by climate change, issued this week by the London-based Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).

“While publicly-listed companies have long been required to disclose information relating to the potential impact of climate change on their business, the private equity community has not been obliged to research or communicate comparable information,” said IIGCC chairman Peter Dunscombe.

“With legislation such as the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme coming into effect as soon as April, this guide is a signal to the sector that now is the time to step up its attitude to climate change.”

The CRC, formerly known as the Carbon Reduction Commitment, is designed to address carbon emissions from energy use and is set to impact 20,000 large UK organisations.

Aimed at pension fund trustees who are limited partners in private equity funds as well as private equity fund managers, the IIGCC guide sets out a series of questions that both groups should ask of their fund managers or portfolio companies.

“This is guidance, it’s not guidelines,” said IIGCC programme director Stephanie Pfeifer, adding that a next step could be to look at best practice in the sector.

Simon Walker, chief executive of the British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, said: “As governments across the world step up their efforts to combat growing environmental challenges, it is essential that private equity investors are equipped with the right tools to adequately assess the impact new policy initiatives, and the wider economic effects of climate change, could have on their investments.”

The IIGCC has more than 50 members representing assets worth €4 trillion ($5.4 trillion).

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Buying off the big polluters looks bad but it works

rom
February 28, 2010


Charles Clover


These are gloomy times for those convinced that cutting fossil fuel emissions is vital for the climate and the health of the oceans. Yvo de Boer, the formidable United Nations climate chief, has resigned, public belief in global warming is on the wane and there is shrill triumphalism in the blogosphere about the silly errors made by climate scientists.

Meanwhile, carbon trading — the process by which polluting companies can buy credits from companies with fewer emissions — is not proving as straightforward as had been hoped. Corus, for example, has mothballed its steel plant on Teesside, but is now widely expected to profit hugely by selling £250m worth of carbon credits that the government is giving it.

In the European Union the price of emitting a ton of carbon has plummeted to €13 (£11.60) — a level that is undermining investment in renewable energy. Recently Drax, our biggest coal-fired power station which has invested in technology to burn carbon-neutral wood and fuel crops, announced that buying carbon credits and continuing to burn coal was cheaper than using the new technology. It is little wonder that the idea of buying and selling permits to pollute has come under attack from sceptics and environmentalists alike.

So you may be surprised to learn that the most detailed evaluation of the first three years of the EU’s emissions trading scheme has ruled that it is a success, cutting emissions significantly below the levels they would otherwise have reached. This study (Pricing Carbon, published by Cambridge University Press) reveals that over its three-year trial phase the scheme cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 300m tons of carbon — equivalent to half the UK’s annual emissions.

The world’s first cap and trade scheme — still regarded with suspicion by US senators — has not only reduced emissions but has also created a template for more ambitious cuts.

Unfortunately, the EU’s total emissions still rose during those three years, although less than they might have otherwise. But don't forget: the trading scheme did what it said it would, however much the greens grumble about the utilities switching from coal to less carbon-heavy gas rather than to wind power. It also cut carbon emissions without dire economic consequences and with far less noise than if Europe had levied a carbon tax.

This matters because it is a common view — in America and among climate sceptics such as Christopher Booker and Nigel Lawson — that putting a price on carbon imposes an unacceptable cost on western economies. Nonsense. As Denny Ellerman, an economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and lead author of Carbon Pricing, says, it is clear that US banks’ bad debt has had a far greater effect on the European economy than the price on energy imposed by carbon trading.

One reason people are convinced that trading has been a failure is the low carbon price — caused by recession and an over-allocation of permits. Then there are the windfall profits that sometimes result when governments give companies such as Corus free allocations of permits to pollute. The political reality, however, is that free allocation of permits buys the co-operation of the big industry lobbies, which higher taxes would not. Buying off opponents in the early phase, as President Barack Obama plans to do, may be grubby but who says taxes are a more honest alternative?

It’s interesting to examine how carbon trading has fared during a recession. Because fewer people wanted energy, the price of permits went down, thus lowering the burden on hard-pressed companies. When some found they could not borrow cash from banks, they raised it by selling their allowances — gambling that they would be able to buy them back when customers returned. A carbon tax, imposed by politicians, would have certainly resulted in more companies closing. Carbon trading also works far better across borders than taxes. It has created a new global economy (worth €121 billion) in which large transfers of private money flow from rich countries to poor ones.

The parliamentary environmental audit select committee recently evaluated trading and taxes — and came down on the side of trading. It has asked for more trading and better targets and wants the system to be extended to more businesses. In the committee’s view, we may need to tax imported goods produced in countries where there is no carbon price. And why not? Taxes and trading are not by definition incompatible.

The fact remains that carbon trading is still giving some people a chance to make a quick buck. I can sympathise with the Republicans, who have launched a lawsuit against the threat to use regulation to reduce carbon emissions if the Senate does not pass the Obama administration’s new cap and trade bill.

How long, then, before America starts trading carbon? It could be a while yet — after all, it took 10 years to negotiate emissions trading for sulphur under the US Clean Air Act — and I believe that is why the UN climate chief resigned. But America will go with cap and trade in the end. The latest evidence shows that it would be mad to do anything else.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Forest carbon & sustainability

Thursday, 25 February 2010


While cap-and-trade legislation stalls in the US and Australia, Copenhagen’s limited progress holds back REDD, and the inflexibilities of the Kyoto Protocol’s CDM keeps a lid on reforestation activity, New Zealand is in many ways leading the world in the use of forestry for compliance-based carbon markets. Forestry and land-use projects have largely been led by the voluntary carbon market internationally. But now a Kyoto-linked market for forest carbon offsets under New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme (NZ-ETS) is off and running, albeit at a modest pace so far.

The NZ-ETS has a significant place for forestry, which became the scheme’s first covered sector back in 2008. But the focus is not solely on domestic offsetting. Under the New Zealand government’s unique application of Kyoto rules, forest owners are taking advantage of its offer to convert domestic carbon credits, NZUs, to internationally tradable AAUs. These Assigned Amount Units are the UN carbon allowances allocated to Annex 1 developed countries and through which emissions trading is carried out at the government-to-government level under Kyoto.

AAUs are also flowing to Kiwi foresters under the Permanent Forests Sink Initiative (PFSI), a dedicated forest carbon scheme that pre-dates the NZ-ETS. Under the PFSI, land reforested after 1989 and subject to a long-term conservation covenant earns AAUs for carbon stored from 2008. Only limited harvesting is possible. Together, the ETS and PFSI make New Zealand the only place forest carbon sequestration can be turned into permanent UN carbon credits, making this a more attractive option internationally for carbon forestry investors than the UN schemes CDM and JI.

Under NZ-ETS rules, forests planted post 1989 on land cleared before that time can qualify for NZUs, and in turn AAUs. Credits are issued only on the carbon sequestered since 2008. But this still creates a sizeable potential pipeline of carbon credits if landowners and foresters decide to take advantage. According to government estimates, there are about 600,000 hectares of eligible post-1989 forest land holding up to 90 million tonnes (Mt) of potential NZU carbon up to 2012. But only around 700,000 forest-related NZUs are estimated to have been issued last year, the bulk of which were converted to AAUs. Uncertainties and risks attached for both buyers and sellers are as yet holding back the forest carbon market somewhat.

Chief among those are harvest liabilities for sellers. Practically all the ETS-eligible forest has been grown for harvest. While allowed under the NZ-ETS, carbon liabilities when cutting down trees introduce significant business risks and planning questions for owners, says Richard Hayes, a director of project developer and investor EITG. NZUs have to be surrendered to cover the associated carbon losses. So while credits can’t be claimed for carbon stored before 2008, harvest liabilities extend over all the carbon, right back to planting. Consideration has to be given to accruing a reserve of credits or buying NZUs on the market to cover obligations, and there are timing decisions around those options.

Nelson Forests is one company proceeding cautiously over realising the carbon credit benefits of its forests, lying on owned and leased land on the South Island. While registered to receive credits for the carbon stored since 2008, things get more complicated in future years when harvest liabilities arise for forests planted between 1990 and 2008 which could see liabilities cancel out credits. “We’re not going to be making any speedy decisions,” said Andrew Karalus, Nelson Forests’ forestry manager. Political uncertainty also remains an issue given the chopping and changing in government policy in recent years. Forestry interests have little confidence that things won’t change again, while the weak Copenhagen climate conference outcomes introduce further doubts over the future for the carbon market, Karalus said.

A lack of clear price signals for AAUs and NZUs also makes forest owners hesitant. As with most fledgling carbon markets, buyers and sellers have been loathe to share pricing details. The small number of forestry credit sales made since mid-2009 are thought to range between €8 and €10 per tonne - below secondary CER prices on European markets of €11 to €13.50 over that time. In the biggest of the deals, the Norwegian government bought 520,000 AAUs from South Island forestry company Ernslaw One last July, at a price believed to be around $NZ20 (€10, $US14) a tonne. City Forests, owned by Dunedin Council, this year sold 150,000 tonnes to a big emitter at a similar price. And generator Mighty River Power has made a forward purchase agreement for NZUs to flow from a 2400-hectare reforestation project on the shores of Lake Taupo on the North Island. The deal with a Maori group comes with social and environmental benefits which is believed to have seen a premium paid above the $20 price mark.

Local players are talking up the AAU market to potential government buyers and carbon traders in Europe and other Annex 1 countries. They emphasise the unique ability to access permanent Kyoto carbon credits from forestry, cheaper prices than CERs, and all underwritten by a developed-world government with robust land ownership system. Permanent Forests International (PFI) in Christchurch says most of the forest eligible for carbon credits is in the hands of small landowners. The company is aggregating their small parcels into marketable AAU pools and expects to have 50,000 tCO2 ready for sale in coming months. “There is an opportunity for overseas buyers to come in and buy Kyoto credits at lower than the prevailing international prices,” said PFI’s Ollie Belton. But that could mean the supply of forest credits available to domestic emitters in NZ-ETS may dry up. “Local emitters could see lots of NZ offset credits go offshore this year,” Belton says.

PFI estimates NZ-ETS emitters will have an NZU shortfall of around 40Mt overall across the Kyoto first commitment period to 2012, which would have to be met by either paying the fixed price, buying CERs or buying local forestry offsets. Much of this year’s supply will emerge over the next month or two as foresters register their 2009 credit claims by a March 31 deadline. But others doubt there will be much domestic demand for forest credits this year. While the settings are largely in place for the start of the of the ETS in earnest this July, market uncertainties and transition arrangements have limited NZU demand. There is little incentive yet for emitters to jump in and buy forest credits to offset emissions. Those high-emitting sectors that are covered this year – power generation, industrial processes and transport - are only liable for 50 per cent of their emissions until 2013. This, and a fixed carbon price of $NZ25 per tonne initially, makes it easier for emitters to plan their obligation with certainty and not worry too much about chasing cheaper offsets.

Emitters’ real focus is on how to best to minimise their emissions liabilities by “intelligent use of the rules” and lobbying for generous permit allocations, Hayes says. Another market observer says that at best there may be modest domestic demand this year for forest credits as emitters try to bargain prices down far enough below $25 to make offsetting worthwhile.


Ian Hamilton
Carbon Positive

US Senators to propose abandoning cap-and-trade


By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 27, 2010

Three key senators are engaged in a radical behind-the-scenes overhaul of climate legislation, preparing to jettison the broad "cap-and-trade" approach that has defined the legislative debate for close to a decade.

The sharp change of direction demonstrates the extent to which the cap-and-trade strategy -- allowing facilities to buy and sell pollution credits in order to meet a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions -- has become political poison. In a private meeting with several environmental leaders on Wednesday, according to participants, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), declared, "Cap-and-trade is dead."

Graham and Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) have worked for months to develop an alternative to cap-and-trade, which the House approved eight months ago. They plan to introduce legislation next month that would apply different carbon controls to individual sectors of the economy instead of setting a national target.

According to several sources familiar with the process, the lawmakers are looking at cutting the nation's greenhouse gas output by targeting, in separate ways, three major sources of emissions: electric utilities, transportation and industry.

Power plants would face an overall cap on emissions that would become more stringent over time; motor fuel may be subject to a carbon tax whose proceeds could help electrify the U.S. transportation sector; and industrial facilities would be exempted from a cap on emissions for several years before it is phased in. The legislation would also expand domestic oil and gas drilling offshore and would provide federal assistance for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities.

"This is a different bill," Lieberman said in an interview. "We haven't abandoned the market-based idea, but we're willing to negotiate with colleagues who have different ideas."

Many lawmakers and lobbyists say even a radically different climate bill would face big hurdles to passage, given conflicting corporate and consumer interests, regional divides and a crowded Senate calendar. Energy industry lobbyists have turned much of their attention to proposing numerous variations of more narrow energy legislation.

But President Obama has continued to push for broad legislation that he says would make the U.S. economy more efficient, slow climate change and fulfill U.S. pledges in international climate talks in December to cut the country's emissions by 17 percent by 2020. A U.S. failure to fulfill that commitment could undercut the determination of other nations to live up to their pledges.

Opponents of cap-and-trade, including GOP congressional leaders and some energy companies, have portrayed the House-passed bill as an energy tax in disguise that would hurt U.S. consumers and create a financial commodity that could be subject to manipulation. The measure also came under criticism because it gave away a large number of free allowances to coal users.

Environmental advocates, eager to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation before the November midterm elections, said the shift in strategy represents the best shot at getting something done this year.

"The Senate is understanding this is not a simple problem -- it's multiple problems, and it requires multiple solutions," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

The change in policy, which might even include giving money raised through carbon pollution allowances directly back to consumers, a scheme known as "cap-and-dividend," could appeal to some wavering senators. Senior Obama administration officials have also been studying the cap-and-dividend approach. But it remains unclear whether that would be enough to produce the 60 votes proponents need, especially when the Senate has yet to finish work on health-care legislation and a jobs package.

Powerful business leaders have their own priorities. Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power, a heavily coal-based utility, said one much-discussed proposal for a cap-and-trade plan limited to utilities was "ridiculous" because it would place an unfair burden on coal-based utilities. He added that "cap-and-dividend would be equally inappropriate." He said it would take money from "mom in the Midwest and dividend it to Paris Hilton."

While Obama has continued to assert the need for any climate bill to raise the price of carbon-based fuels, the American Petroleum Institute has been running television ads during the Winter Olympics saying "Americans say no to raising energy taxes."

Even some moderate Republicans, seen as possible supporters of a new climate bill, remain opposed to the idea of putting a price on carbon, which Lieberman still calls "sine qua non," or an essential ingredient, of any such bill. Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), said the senator, who has opposed cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, could support pricing carbon "potentially at some point, but not at the moment."

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told Kerry this week that he and his colleagues need to produce a bill as soon as possible to have any chance of passage in 2010. Jim Manley, Reid's spokesman, said it is the majority leader's "hope to bring it up to the floor for a vote," adding, "But we've got a whole host of other things on our plate, and aRepublican Party that's making it difficult for us to pass all but the most routine legislation."

Kerry said that although the package the three senators will unveil will not have 60 votes when it becomes public, he is confident that it will win over skeptical lawmakers.

"What people need to understand about this bill is this really is a jobs bill, an economic transformation for America, an energy independence bill and a health/pollution-reduction bill that has enormous benefits for the country," Kerry said.


Friday, February 26, 2010

Environmental Investment Organization

The not-for-profit Environmental Investment Organisation (EIO) is to launch a carbon ranking of the world's largest companies with the aim of helping fund managers build carbon emissions into their investment decisions.
The Environmental Tracking (ET) Carbon Rankings Index could be signed up as a live investment index by Standard & Poors if fund managers indicate their backing for the initiative.


Indexes – of which the FTSE100 is probably the best known in the UK – rank companies so as to enable fund managers to invest in proportion to the companies' position in the ranking. For example, FTSE100 companies are ranked by size of market capitalisation.


The Carbon Rankings Index similarly ranks companies by market capitalisation, but adds a weighting based on their emission reduction performance.


Ranking companies in this way encourages fund managers to invest in proportion to the companies' efforts to reduce emissions as well as their market capitalisation, the EIO said. In theory, the greater a company's effort to reduce emissions, the higher it appears in the index and therefore the greater the demand for its shares, driving up share price and rewarding the company for its initial efforts.


Conventional Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) funds tend to favour specific companies and exclude others based on varying ethical criteria. But Michael Gill, strategic director of the EIO, said the ET Carbon Index would mark the first time emissions metrics apply a uniform pressure on the share prices of all large companies.


So far EIO has built Indexes for the Global 1000, Global 800 and European, North American, Asia-Pacific and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) regions.
Each index uses publicly available emission data from companies' own reports and the Carbon Disclosure Project to rank all companies with over $3bn (£1.9bn) market capitalisation. The indexes are further weighted towards companies that h ave made available externally verified emissions data under all three scopes of the GHG Protocol covering direct and indirect emissions.


Companies which fail to declare emissions are given "inferred" scores based on a "worst-case" benchmark company in their index.


"Companies with inferred numbers can move up the index by making their data available to disprove our inferred figures," Gill told BusinessGreen.com.


Using the ET Carbon Ranking Index, the top three Global 1000 companies are Natura Cosmeticos of Brazil, Novozymes of Denmark and AstraZeneca of the UK. The bottom three are Petrobras of Brazil, Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet's US investment house, and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.


The next step for EIO is to promote the index among fund managers, Gill said.
"Signing a contract with S&P will cost real money and we will need the fees from the use of the index [by fund managers] to sustain that," he explained. "But [our fees] will be a quarter of that charged by other indexes."