Verdad Verde


California’s Carbon Tax

In California, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is quietly proposing what is thought to be the first direct carbon tax on businesses in the country by a governmental entity. Currently the proposed carbon tax is in the final stages of its public hearing process and if the proposal is adopted at a May 21 hearing it would go into effect on July 1. Once adopted the carbon tax would affect “[a]ll facilities with stationary sources of [greenhouse gas] emissions that are subject to an Air District permit requirement.” The BAAQMD’s jurisdiction covers the seven full counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Napa, and portions of Solano and Sonoma. The proposed fee would affect approximately 850 facilities and the BAAQMD anticipates the tax would raise $1.1 million annually for recovery of “the costs associated with its Climate Protection Program activities.”

Even though all indications point to some kind of federal greenhouse gas emission legislation being passed in the near future, the BAAQMD is going foreward with its carbon tax. The success or failure of the BAAQMD’s carbon tax will be closely monitored and more likely than not similar carbon taxes will start showing up in other states.



Beef or Biofuels?

In what may be a sign of things to come, the state of Texas has requested “a 50 percent waiver from the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS) mandate for ethanol produced from grain.” The RFS mandate is intended to “increase the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.” In a statement on the governor of Texas’ website it cites that the waiver is requested because of “skyrocketing food costs.” Further, in the letter sent to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, states that RFS mandate is having unintended and harmful consequences on the Texas economy and in particular the agricultural industry. Basically, with the rise in cost of grain it is putting a strain on the 149,000 cattle producers in Texas. If Texas were granted the waiver than the grain that would have been earmarked for biofuels could instead be used to feed Texas cattle. Texas’ waiver request might be the first in a line of similar requests as “officials in Missouri and Virgina are considering asking for similar exemptions.”



Fraud in the Carbon Markets

Before a business or individual takes the dive into the carbon markets they should be aware of fraud and worthless carbon credits in the markets. Because of the news and momentum in the carbon markets, it has attracted legitimate businesses and those looking to make a quick buck. There already have been a couple of investigations which have uncovered possible fraudulent carbon projects and worthless carbon credits.

Recently the U.N. has started to question some carbon projects for “whether they provide real environmental gains, or are just padding the pockets of middlemen like EcoSecurities.” The U.N.’s actions are noteworthy because the legitimacy of the projects being looked at occurred in the regulated European carbon market, and not an unregulated carbon market. The Guardian alleges that is has collected evidence which so far leads it to believe that the global carbon “markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through a combination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment.” The list of those questioning the legitimacy of some carbon projects and whether fraud is being committed in the carbon market continues to grow.

In the past the Financial Times, and the New York Times have run stories about fraud in the carbon markets. All of the questions surrounding the carbon markets should serve as a warning to businesses and individuals looking to enter the carbon markets. It is clearly a buyer beware type of market right now, but it should not be an excuse to stand on the sidelines.

There are several resources available to find legitimate carbon projects such as California Climate Action Registry, and the EPA. There are also many reputable companies that trade in the carbon markets that could help businesses reach their carbon goals, such as NativeEnergy, Climate Trust, and TerraPass. With all of the resources there should be no hesitation about getting into the carbon markets, but you must do your homework beforehand.



The Warming of Mutual Funds to Green Investors

The mutual fund industry is certainly starting to take notice of the growing number green investors.  Shareholders demanding climate change resolution are being met with less opposition from the mutual fund industry.  Climate change resolutions  typically “call on companies to disclose their own emissions, reduce emissions and explain climate risks and opportunities from their actions and investments.”  While some in the mutual fund industry are starting to take action there are still some firms resisting these green investors.   

Some of the firms resisting the green investors are being singled out by Co-op America as part of a green investor campain.  Co-op America is trying to get investors of 10 of the largest mutual fund firms to demand that the firms do more to force businesses to look at climate change issues.  Certainly if the mutual fund industry and its billions of dollars invested in businesses started demanding that businesses look at their climate impact, it would not fall on deaf ears. 



Prepare for the Inevitable

As this blog has stated before climate change legislation is coming to the United States and businesses who choose to ignore their environmental impact will be at a competitive disadvantage. In a recent article Personal Computing World gives a good overview of how a business should prepare for carbon legislation. If you are new to climate change or just want a few quick pointers it would serve you well to take a look at this article. As the author puts it “[t]here is a clear competitive advantage available to companies” that work on evaluating and implementing an environmental plan before climate change legislation is passed in the Untied States.



The Rapid Expansion of Carbon Trading Markets

Carbon trading has the potential to become the next big thing in the financial markets. The Financial Times recently reported that “[c]arbon emissions trading could become the world’s leading derivatives product.” The article went on to state that the Hong Kong stock exchange, the Multi Commodity Exchange of India and the New Zealand Stock Exchange are all looking into creating trading platforms for carbon trading. While here in the United States the New York Mercantile Exchange is going to join the Chicago Climate Exchange in offering carbon trading.

When individuals who make their livings on predicting future trends and markets start lining up to get into the carbon market, emitters should take notice. This is just more evidence that carbon legislation is more likely than not going to be passed in the near future. Again it should be noted that it is time for businesses to start looking at their carbon footprints and making plans to reduce their emissions. A business should spend the time now, while it has time, looking at what it can and cannot do with respect to its carbon footprint. Because when carbon legislation is passed it will be too late into the game to come up with a well thought out plan, and instead a business will be forced to run a sprint with one arm behind its back.



Growth of the Voluntary Carbon Market

Unlike the mandatory carbon markets, such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has a completely voluntary carbon market. While a voluntary carbon market might sound like a losing environmental cause, it actually has some weight behind it. In 2006, the volume of carbon offsets traded in the global voluntary market was “larger in volume than both the Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation mechanism and the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme.” In fact, the worldwide voluntary carbon market grew 200% between 2005 and 2006. It was further estimated that the global voluntary carbon market was worth $91 million in 2006.

Others probably would be surprised to hear that many large companies are participating in the voluntary carbon market. Dell, Delta, AEP, Google, Pacific Gas & Electric, Yahoo, Nike, Sky, and Origin Energy are just a couple of the businesses buying offsets from the voluntary carbon market. Whether the interest in the voluntary carbon market is in anticipation of future legislation or from a social responsibility point of view, the voluntary carbon market is growing fast. The opportunities to make money in the voluntary carbon market will continue to increase as more and more companies and individuals participate in the market. Also as more money gets invested in the voluntary carbon market, the likelihood of breakthroughs in technology increases.



California is losing its PERC

By 2023 all of Californians’ clothes will be dry cleaned by green cleaners. In January 2007, California started the process of phasing out conventional dry cleaning by banning the commonly used chemical perchloroethylene (commonly known as “perc”). One of the reasons why California has banned perc is because “[t]here is some evidence of an association between perc and increased risk of certain cancers in dry cleaning workers exposed for many years.” The dangers of perc are nothing new, in fact, the EPA first started regulating perc as an air toxin in 1993.

However, what makes California’s legislation noteworthy is the fact that instead of continuing to regulate perc, California has outlawed its use altogether. This will force California’s dry cleaners to switch to alternative methods of dry cleaning clothes. Currently there are two main methods, wet cleaning and liquid carbon dioxide cleaning, but neither method is as effective as conventional dry cleaning with perc.

Followers of environmental legislation know that California is usually a leader among the states in addressing environmental issues. Those in the dry cleaning business can be assured that many other states are watching the perc ban in California. It is only a matter of time until other states start following California’s lead in banning perc. So dry cleaners in other states should start learning about and investing in greener dry cleaning technologies in anticipation of future legislation. After all if investors are demanding companies go green, one can only assume that customers will also.



How do you get to . . . green?

Is seems you can’t read an article about climate change and not be subjected to arguments about why the United States should legislate carbon emissions. However, what gets glossed over is what method the United States should implement when it does legislate carbon emissions. There currently are two main methods for reducing carbon emissions, the cap and trade and the carbon credits or offsets.

The cap and trade method is the more familiar program as the EPA already uses such a system for acid rain. Under this type of program a governmental entity sets a cap on the total output of carbon emissions for a given industry or category of emitters. An emitter is then allocated or sold a percentage of the allowable emissions based on its share of the cap. If an emitter’s carbon emissions is less than it was allowed to discharge the emitter can then sell its unused portions. However, if an emitter’s output of carbon emissions is greater than it was allocated than the emitter must purchase unused portions of other emitter’s caps.

For example, assume Company A and Company B each are allowed to emit 50 tons of carbon emission a year. Company A develops technologies that reduces its total carbon emissions to only 40 tons for a given year. As a result Company A can sell the 10 tons of unused emissions on the open market. Now assume Company B emits a total of 60 tons of carbon emissions in the same year. Company B must then purchase an additional 10 tons of carbon emissions from another company (i.e., from Company A).

The benefits of such a system are that since the EPA already uses such a system for acid rain the foundation for such a system for carbon should already be laid. This type of program also encourages companies to find ways to reduce carbon emission. Also an emitter can recoup some of the costs of reducing carbon emissions by selling its unused carbon allocations to other emitters who go over their cap allocations.

The alternative to a cap and trade program is a carbon credit and offset program. Under this method an an emitter reduces its carbon emissions and then sells its reductions as credits that offset a buyer’s emissions. The problem with such a program is ensuring that the credits buyers are purchasing real reductions of carbon emissions. One example of a legitimate company running a carbon credit and offset program is TerraPass.

For example, suppose you wanted to buy carbon credits equal to the amount of carbon you were emitting on you drive into work. TerraPass will help you calculate how much carbon you emit on your daily drive and then you can purchase an equal number of carbon credits. TerraPass also has checks and balances to ensure that each carbon reduction program it invests produces real reductions in carbon emissions.

John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all support a cap and trade system, so it would appear that the United States will implement a cap and trade system sometime in the near future. Currently a cap and trade system would work better for controlling the carbon emissions of business. However, the likes of TerraPass will not be going away anytime soon, because such a service gives individuals the opportunity to reduce carbon emissions from their daily lives.



Seeing Black in the Green Market

As green investors grow in numbers, so will the businesses who market and profit from them.  Merrill Lynch just ”rolled out a set of indexes anticipating the growth of carbon emissions markets.”  Merrill is not the first business to offer environmentally themed investment vehicles.  Businesses already in the field offering environment-oriented ETFs include Powershares, Claymore, and Van Eck.  These companies get it.  They see the potential value and profits in the green movement.  By simply offering a green product it will drive more customers and goodwill to their companies.  Other businesses should follow the lead of these businesses.