Yesterday, we found out via Inside Climate News and Brad Johnson over at Grist that the environmental impact statement the State Department just released on the Keystone XL pipeline was written by a private consulting firm being paid by the pipeline’s owner.

This obviously raises concerns about conflicts of interest with the report itself, but it also highlights the problems with turning government work and analysis over to private firms with possible financial ties to other private entities who may be affected by that work and analysis — a phenomenon that’s been underway since the 1990s.

State’s report, which found that the pipeline was “unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands,” and will “not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects,” was written by Environmental Resources Management (ERM). Several years ago, Cardno Entrix, another private consultancy, was contracted by TransCanada to handle the State Department’s initial draft of the environmental impact statement, the Department’s hearings on the pipeline, and even its Keystone XL website.

As Johnson reported, ERM was paid “an undisclosed amount under contract to TransCanada” for the assessment:

The documents from the ERM-TransCanada agreement are on the State Department’s website, but payment amounts and other clients and past work of ERM are redacted. In the contract documents, ERM partner Steven J. Koster certifies that his company has no conflicts of interest. He also certifies that ERM has no business relationship with TransCanada or “any business entity that could be affected in any way by the proposed work” (notwithstanding the impact statement contract itself). In a cover letter, Koster promises State Department NEPA Coordinator Genevieve Walker that ERM understands “the need for an efficient and expedited process to meet the demands of the desired project schedule.”

An investigation by Inside Climate News finds that ERM’s report draws from work done by other oil industry contractors, Ensys Energy and ICF International.

According to State’s report, the department “directed the preparation,” but the project’s manager is the only government official actually listed on the cover page.

Inside Climate News reported Ensys has worked with ExxonMobil, BP and Koch Industries, though Ensys president Martin Tallet emphasized the consulting firm has also worked with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the World Bank. “We don’t do advocacy,” Tallett told Inside Climate News, pointing out that EnSys employees acted as expert witnesses for various state water agencies and against the oil industry in court cases on groundwater contamination from MBTE, a gasoline additive. “If we were the pet of government agencies or oil companies, the other side wouldn’t come to us.” ICF International declined to comment on the Keystone report.

According to both David Driesen, a law professor at Syracuse University and a former attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Joel A. Mintz, a law professor at Florida’s Nova Southeastern University, conflicts of interest can be difficult to avoid in practice, whatever the official statements:

Read more

By Andrew Light, Mari Hernandez, and Adam James, via the Center for American Progress. Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this issue brief.

In the past several years, small groups of some of the world’s largest carbon polluters have joined forces to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as part of their overall efforts to slow the pace of dangerous global warming. These efforts include the G20 leaders’ 2009 pledge to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies; the launch of a number of efforts on clean energy cooperation through the global Clean Energy Ministerial starting in 2010; and the creation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants a year ago, which started with six nations and has now grown to 27 countries plus the European Union.

Following on these efforts, we propose that the 17 parties in the Major Economies Forum, the U.S.-led coalition of the world’s largest carbon emitters, set a target of generating 40 percent of their electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2035 — what we call the “40×35” target.

Our analysis shows that meeting this target is not only highly feasible but, if met, would also reduce these countries’ cumulative CO2 emissions by approximately 6.4 gigatons — 6,398 million metric tons — by 2035. While there are other kinds of renewable energy targets that would result in greater emissions reductions — for example, targets that exclude hydroelectricity or nuclear power — we argue that the 40 percent all-inclusive zero-carbon target is more politically feasible and also sufficiently ambitious to be worth pursuing. Achieving this target would be a significant contribution to meeting the global goal of the international climate negotiations of stabilizing temperature increases caused by climate change at 2 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels by the end of this century.

As we will show, projections for a zero-carbon electricity mix for many of the parties of the Major Economies Forum by 2035 are already quite high — some nations are already headed beyond the 40 percent target on a business-as-usual pathway. So far, however, none of these countries has made a documented commitment for achieving any energy goals beyond 2030.

The existence of a set target among the Major Economies Forum parties would help protect projected emissions reductions from backsliding due to changes in fuel costs, currently unforeseen policy changes in these countries as governments change, and other unanticipated consequences. A common target by these developed and developing countries could galvanize the range of national-level policies already in place, and increase the ambition of all parties to hit the target. More importantly, these countries could make a common commitment along with an agreement to share best practices to expand the renewable electricity sector, cooperate on technology development and deployment, and strengthen existing bilateral agreements between parties that support these ends.

We will also demonstrate that pairing such a zero-carbon electricity target with an energy efficiency goal would be incredibly beneficial. First, incorporating energy efficiency from the beginning in countries that are likely to see a surge in electricity demand over the coming years will create more sustainable smart energy systems in those countries. Second, reducing total energy demand means that each investment in new, zero-carbon generation counts for more in terms of total emissions reductions. Demand reduction will enable many countries to more easily hit this zero-carbon target.

In this issue brief we present the rationale for pursuing emissions reductions through the Major Economies Forum, our analysis on a range of target scenarios as applied to the forum parties, and our recommendation for action.

Read more

By Kelly Levin, via WRI Insights.

After a year of extreme weather events and recent studies outlining climate change’s impacts, it’s become increasingly clear that we must understand what emissions reduction pathways are necessary to avoid these risks. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) last Assessment Report, for example, outlined the emissions reductions needed from developed countries to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) consistent with limiting warming to 2°C.

Further research has continued to examine the global GHG emissions reductions necessary to avert dangerous climate change. And as countries implement existing policies and consider new ones, the scale of required emissions cuts is a fundamental question. In fact, it’s one of the most pressing questions facing the international climate change community.

One new study shows that we have to reduce emissions even more than scientists initially thought in order to avoid climate change’s worst impacts. A paper published in Energy Policy on February 20 by Michel den Elzen and colleagues examines new information on likely future emissions trajectories in developing countries. This includes recent clarification of assumptions and conditions related to developing country pledges. In addition, countries have also come forward with further information on their emissions projections. As a result, the report finds that developed countries must reduce their emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 if we are to have a medium chance of limiting warming to 2°C, thus preventing some of climate change’s worst impacts.

This level of reductions is considerably higher than what the scientific community thought was necessary to meet the 2°C goal. The most recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report laid out a recipe for a medium chance [1] of limiting warming to 2°C. This report — compiled by the world’s leading climate scientists — stated that developed countries would have to reduce their emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and developing country emissions would have to be reduced substantially from their business-as-usual emissions trajectories.

Are We on Track to Achieve These Reductions?

While the den Elzen and colleagues’ paper is just one of many studies on necessary levels of emissions reductions, it lays out a troubling issue: the world may need to reduce its emissions even more significantly than previously thought. The bad news is that we knew we were already far from a 25 to 40 percent reduction in developed countries by 2020. And in light of den Elzen’s new data, we are even further from a 50 percent reduction decline.

Read more

By Jesse Morris, via Rocky Mountain Institute.

From Forbes to Fortune, Bloomberg to the Wall Street Journal, a young company named Mosaic has been getting a lot of attention of late. Why? Because Mosaic is bringing crowd-sourced funding to the world of solar PV.

Crowdfunding is nothing new. Companies such as Kickstarter have allowed individuals to fund everything from their next indie film to extensive out of pocket medical bills with pooled donations from family, friends, and other supporters. But thanks to last year’s JOBS Act, debt-based crowdfunding is now an option as well, in which investors come together to fund startups and small businesses in return for repayment plus interest from a company like Mosaic.

It’s inclusive, meaning that investors of all shapes and sizes can get into the game. And it currently makes for a good, low-risk investment. Mosaic — with more than $1.1 million invested in solar projects to date — boasts 4.5 to 6.5 percent risk-adjusted annual returns, besting the latest interest rates on 30-year Treasury bonds.

But much of the crowdfunding solar coverage under-emphasizes a key point: funds raised from the crowd — in addition to providing attractive returns for investors and enabling more solar installation period — also have the potential to lower the cost of electricity from solar PV systems in the here and now.

Solar Finance: Credit Card Vs. Mortgage Rates

Imagine for a moment that a credit card company issues a card with a $200,000 limit. Next, let’s imagine a homeowner taking that card and buying a new home for $200,000 with a thirty-year term, just like most home mortgages. This lucky homeowner just bought a new home for $0 down!

There’s a problem, though. Financing a home purchase with this hypothetical credit card is a seriously bad deal for the homeowner since the annual interest rate would be 13 to 15 percent, according to Bankrate.com, which translates into extremely high monthly payments. Instead, most homeowners finance homes on thirty-year terms with more reasonable interest rates in the 3 to5 percent range. Such inexpensive single-digit bank debt is a key to making the financing work, since the cost of the debt is a huge factor in the overall cost of the purchase over the term of the deal.

Just as financing solutions like credit cards and home mortgages help families buy new appliances and homes, several different finance solutions are helping solar energy systems be deployed on homes and businesses throughout the U.S. today. In fact, about 75 percent of residential solar photovoltaic projects and 40 percent of commercial ones are financed with different “third-party ownership” models, where electricity users install a solar system with little to no money down and start saving money from day one.

But the capital used to deploy these third-party-owned solar projects has an effective interest rate that looks more like that of a credit card than a mortgage. This translates into high monthly payments for electricity from solar systems — just like a homeowner making steep payments on a credit card in the home purchase example. Although it’s not the only factor at play, high interest rates (closely related to “costs of capital”) are one of the big reasons we only see lots of solar in places like Hawaii (where residents pay the highest electricity rates in the nation), but not Kentucky: solar developers can only produce savings for customers in areas with a combination of high electricity rates, good sunlight, and attractive local incentives. Think California and Arizona, two leading states nationwide for total installed solar capacity.

For folks interested in deploying as much solar in the U.S. as quickly as possible, this is a problem. Right now, the capital structure behind most solar projects in the U.S. is prohibitively expensive for the economics of solar to pencil out in most of the country. So, we’ve got to help make capital for solar projects look more like home mortgage loans than credit card debt.

There are a number of ways to do this, but many of the most popular solutions, such as master limited partnerships and solar-specific real estate investment trusts, require regulatory and/or federal legislative changes and aren’t likely to become large-scale solutions in the near term. However, there’s one solution that’s already upon us — crowdfunding.
Read more

During my multi-week recovery, I have a dual mission: Digging out old, unfinished post material and searching for humor. Laughter is the best medicine, but for some reasons, my health insurer won’t cover DVDs of Seinfeld.

In this post, I kill two birds with one stone — assuming you’re one of those who favor efficient avicide.

In this case, it’s gallows humor, courtesy of the inimitable Tom the Dancing Bug (via BoingBoing):

Snowquester left D.C. relatively untouched save for the reputations of weather forecasters. But it dumped close to 2 feet of snow in areas of Virginia and Maryland, and still threatens floods and high winds along the coast. [Climate Central]

The storm some have called “Snowquester” and others “Saturn” won’t leave a snowy legacy in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore after all, but could long be remembered for doing lasting damage to the Delaware, New Jersey, and southern New England coastlines. The storm is moving slowly, which means that in Massachusetts, as many as six high tide cycles could yield severe beach erosion and coastal flooding, due to a prolonged stretch of gale-force onshore winds and high seas on the order of 25 to 30 feet.

The damage from a Feb. 9 blizzard, combined with the extended timeframe of this event is heightening coastal flooding and beach erosion concerns. In Cape May, N.J., forecast storm tide levels are projected to be slightly higher than they were during Hurricane Sandy, which set all-time records in much of the state.

This computer model forecast shows a peak storm tide of about 9 feet above Mean Lower Low Water, which would be a record for that location and 1.2 inches higher than during Sandy, according to the National Weather Service.

Sally Jewel — an accomplished mountain climber, expert skier, longtime bicycle commuter, and the president of Recreational Equipment Inc. — is President Obama’s pick to head the Department of the Interior. Her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate is today. [Bloomberg]

The State Department’s Keystone XL report was written by a private consultancy that’s contracted with the pipeline’s owner as well as with the government. [Grist]

Investing in climate change used to mean putting money into efforts to stop global warming. But now some investors are taking the opposite approach, and investing in businesses that will profit as the planet gets hotter, under the assumption that climate change is inevitable. [Businessweek]

Despite mounting weather-related claims, only 23 insurance companies of 184 surveyed had comprehensive strategies to cope with climate change, according to report by Ceres, a Boston-based non-profit that promotes eco-minded business practices. [USA Today]

The percentage of Americans who are “alarmed” about climate change and motivated to do something about it increased to 16 percent between 2010 and 2012, according to a new poll by researchers at Yaleand George Mason universities. [Climate Central]

Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service will decide whether to place hundreds of species under the protection of the Endangered Species Act by 2018. [NYTimes]

The House of Representatives voted 267-151 on Wednesday to exempt the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s geostationary weather satellites from 2012′s reduced spending levels. [Climate Central]

A proposal by the United States to ban cross-border trade in polar bears and their parts was defeated Thursday at an international meeting of conservationists. [WaPo]

The European Union’s plans to reform its emissions trading scheme are insufficient to deliver the desired increase in carbon prices, according to a new report. [BusinessGreen]