Cleantech

One things for sure, post Super Tuesday with Governor Mike Huckabee far behind, Mitt Romney out, and McCain the all but crowned Republican nominee, the US is getting a cap and trade system for carbon. The question is which one. I thought I'd track a little of the candidates' various positions.

The major differences that are left between the parties are on how to do it. In general the Republicans favor US based systems, the Democrats favor a Kyoto based approach. The Democrats favor 100% allowance, the Republicans favor a slower adjustment scheme (The Kyoto mechanisms today are actually closer the Republican stance).

Don't forget, the real reason the US has not ratified Kyoto is less about whether to use the market based mechanisms (we were the ones who actually advocated putting carbon trading in), and more about the fact that under Kyoto, our major economic competitors in China and India have no commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, and under Kyoto effectively receive foreign aid from developed nations to build out their powerplants and infrastructure. And this concern has gotten worse, as China has now passed the US as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but has consistently refused to consider its own emissions reductions. So in reality, even if the Democrats win, we may still get a US focused cap and trade system if that is all that can get through the Senate.

But while any candidate election would likely make a US cap and trade a foregone conclusion, unlike McCain who has actually put forward US cap and trade legislation with a Kyoto "linkage", Hillary and Barack both talk a new treaty and about a G-8 plus major emitters "extra Kyoto" approach that includes China. This sound surprisingly like the approach George W Bush took at the G-8 summit proposing to work within a group of the 15 largest emitters. Not surprisingly, it failed when the Bush Administration refused to sign up to commitments without China and India on the hook, and China still is not interested in signing commitments. Unlike McCain, I'm not sure Barack Obama and Hillary have figured out the details here. But we shall see.

First, the last naysayer.

Mitt Romney

In 2004 Mitt Romney told the Boston Globe he was not sure global warming is happening.

In 2007 on the global warming issue he has continued to be anti Kyoto, at least. "As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations." Source

And the Republicans.

Mike Huckabee

Bottom line, likely no Kyoto and but maybe a cap and trade.

Huckabee has come out in support of "economy-wide" cap and trade, in a Bloomberg article on Huckabee's support for the McCain sponsored bill.

Huckabee adopted the National Governors Association policy:

"not sign or ratify any agreement that mandates new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the US, unless such an agreement mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period;"

Kyoto was a mistake, but "Earth in the Balance" is not. You do not have to hug a tree to appreciate one. It would have been a mistake to sign the Kyoto Treaty since it would have given foreign nations the power to impose standards on us. But Al Gore was not entirely wrong when he spoke of earth "in the balance." Balance is exactly what we need more of in this discussion. All of us need to have a healthy respect for our resources, a responsible level of use of those resources, and a comprehensive plan for either preserving or renewing those resources. Source: From Hope to Higher Ground, by Mike Huckabee, p. 70 Jan 4, 2007 Source

John McCain

A keen proponent of market based environmental solutions, and anti tax to boot. He is heavily in favor of cap and trade, and as coathor of the McCain-Lieberman Senate bill backing a US cap and trade is the only candidate who has actually been doing anything about it. But he has not necessarily supported ratifying Kyoto without Chinese participation like Hillary Clinton (her husband was the one who signed it originally) appears to be advocating.

Among other things McCain-Lieberman calls for cap and trade, with the amount of allowances to be determined in the future, up to 15% of allowances permitted from other systems (like Kyoto's CDM mechanism), and an enforcement penalty of 300% of the per ton market price for companies over their cap. A good summary has been done by the Pew Center, as well as a comparison with other climate change legislation.

In 2003 McCain did a good LA Times Op Ed piece defending cap and trade as a solution to global warming.

In a further interview he reaffirmed his belief that market based environmental solutions will work.

"Is your party where it needs to be on global warming yet?

Sen. McCain: It varies in my party, so I can't say "my party." But where I think our party needs to be is to be more involved in market-based economically beneficial green technologies which will then reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.In other words, Lieberman's and my cap-and-trade proposal is market based. General Electric, the world's largest corporation believes they're going to make profits off of green technologies. I was just out at the port of Los Angeles with Schwarzenegger and BP is going to sequester carbon and take some offshoot materials and convert them into some kind of fuel, as I understand it. That's going to be beneficial to BP to do that; in other words, it's economically profitable to do these things.

Ponnuru: One of the stumbling blocks people sometimes have is that they look at these proposals to deal with the problem and they seem, not the ones you're talking about but some of these other ones, incredibly draconian, like Kyoto, and then you look at the pay-off and it'll solve 0.7 percent of the problem. Is the problem so enormous that these kinds of measures can't really get you very far?

Sen. McCain: [They can] if they're market-based. If business and industry sees a way to make money and get returns to their stock holders, then they're going to move in that direction. And I really believe that again, this cap and trading thing, which is still being sorted out a bit in Europe, is a good market-based approach to it. And again, carbon sequestration is fine, all of these things are fine, but if you want an immediate impact on reduction of greenhouse gases then start building nuclear power plants. And I'm not saying that's the only answer but I think it's a significant part of the answer."Source

McCain has adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:

"The Republican Main Street Partnership supports the goal of immediate, near-term reductions in greenhouse gases, and would move toward this goal by providing strong incentives that have minimal adverse impact on the economy, and to continue to apply our best scientific minds to developing a better understanding of the long-term nature of climate change and the means to cope with it.

Two objectives should be accomplished:

create an "early action crediting system" to provide assurances to companies that actions taken now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will be recognized and credited in the eventual system of emissions reductions standards that will be developed; and

commit the necessary resources to national and international scientific efforts to better understand the cause and effect of global climate change.

With regard to global warming, the Republican Main Street Partnership recognizes that a longer debate over the proper U.S. role in implementing the Kyoto Protocol should and will occur. In so doing, we hope to bolster our scientific understanding of the problem and perhaps, in turn, provide immediate incentives for communities and corporations to act in their own and the nation's best interests in reducing emissions. We are strongly committed to acting on the emerging consensus for progress and constructive change, and maintaining America's ability to lead the world in the critical area of environmental protection. Source: Republican Main Street Partnership Issue Paper: Environment 98-RMSP2 on Sep 9, 1998" Source

Ron Paul

A strong environmentalist and free market libertarian, who opposes the Iraq war, Kyoto, and energy company subsidies for all the same reasons, for one, the constitution does not permit it, two, it is the job of the private sector, not government. Despite being the only non cap and trade Republican left in the mix, I always find it hard to disagree with Ron Paul. He and I are kindred spirits when it comes to small government.

Ron Paul on the environment:

"The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

- I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests. - I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property. Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare. - I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests. - Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards." Source

From an interview with Grist:

"What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming? They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it. And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?

It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work.

You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming? I think they're more capable of it than politicians.

What's your position on a carbon tax? I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed." Source

Then the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton has previously stated she would ratify Kyoto (though has discussed "fixing" it first), and has come out in favor of aggressive cap and trade systems. It is a little hard to understand how she will reconcile her stated desire for environmental protection as a key part of trade policy, and a Kyoto protocol that places no emissions reduction commitments on major US trading partners like China and India. The short answer may be she has backed off Kyoto, focused on cap and trade and a new treaty for Kyoto.

The Hillary Clinton global warming agenda from her website:

"Hillary's plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:

A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;

Has said she will vote to ratify Kyoto and is a big supporter of cap and trade, with 100 percent auction of allowances.

A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission" Source

Her previous statements were very strongly pro Kyoto. "As Senator, I will work for New York to get its fair share of federal mass transit funds and to increase the amount of money that goes to transit funds. And, I will vote to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to bring all nations together to address global warming and build a better future for us all. Source: www.hillary2000.org, "Environment" Sep 9, 2000" Source

But recently she has started hedging a bit, talking about the flaws of Kyoto. "I will start by reigniting our international involvement. We cannot sit here, in the United Sates and expect to deal with global warming if we do not cooperate with other countries. Getting back into process, you know when President Bush took us out of Kyoto, I regretted that but he had an opportunity to start his own process, he didn't want to do Kyoto, do something else. Reach out to India and China they have to be part of this. One of the flaws of the Kyoto process was I don't think people anticipated, even in the early 90s how quickly China and India would grow. China is now growing at 12 percent a year. They are the second highest user of energy but they are now the highest emitter of green house gases in the world. India is not far behind. We have got to get a new international process." "Energy and Environment: Speech on the Green Building Fund," Hillary Clinton's official candidate website, July 24, 2007

And further here. "The President's failed unilateral energy policy is a part of our failed unilateral foreign policy. It's deprived us of the credibility and the leverage we need to solve the climate crisis. I'll change that by leading the process to develop a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012. One of the worst messages the President sent was when he took office and rejected completely Kyoto. He could have said we don't like Kyoto but we're immediately starting a new process. But that didn't happen. Well, come January 2009, I'm sending a different message. I want to act quickly to help develop a new treaty. I will engage in high level meetings with leaders around the world every three months, if that's what it takes to hammer out a new agreement. My goal will be to secure a deal by 2010. We can't wait for two more years. I will establish an E8 that's modeled on the G8 which is where the big industrial economies come together. We need the world's major carbon-emitting nations to come together to tackle these challenges."

Barack Obama

As aggressive a global warming activist as you will find in the election, he is actually more Republican on his global warming position that he looks. He like Hillary, favors cap and trade, technology investment, and a 100 percent auction for allowances. But with his extra-Kyoto Global Energy Forum and a noncommital "re-engage" Kyoto strategy, like Hillary he does not appear to have worked out the details.

The Obama statements:

"Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum -- that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa -the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it." Source

"Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050

Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100% auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.

Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Source: Campaign booklet, "Blueprint for Change", p. 24-27 Feb 2, 2008" Source

"Q: What do you think the toughest choice you have left to make is? What haven't you made up your mind on yet? And why haven't you? A: The issue of climate change. I've put forward one of the most aggressive proposals out there, but the science seems to be coming in indicating it's accelerating even more quickly with every passing day. And by the time I take office, I think we're going to have to have a serious conversation about how drastic steps we need to take to address it. Source: 2007 Democratic radio debate on NPR Dec 4, 2007"

"As president, I will place a cap on carbon emissions and require companies who can't meet the cap to buy credits from those who can, which will generate billions of dollars to invest in renewable sources of energy and create new jobs and even a new industry in the process. I'll put in place a low carbon fuel standard that will take 50 million cars worth of pollution off the road. I'll raise the fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks because we know we have the technology to do it and it's the time to do it." Source: Take Back America 2007 Conference Jun 19, 2007

"I proposed a cap-and-trade system, because you can be very specific in terms of how to reduce the greenhouse gases by a particular level. What you have to do is you have to combine it with a 100% auction. Every little bit of pollution sent up into the atmosphere, that polluter is getting charged for it. Not only does that ensure that they don't game the system, but you're also generating billions of dollars that can be invested in solar & wind & biodiesel. On a carbon tax, the cost will be passed on to consumers. Under a cap-and-trade, plants are going to have to retrofit their equipment. That's going to cost money, and they will pass it onto consumers. We have an obligation to use some of the money that we generate to shield low-income and fixed-income individuals from higher electricity prices. We're also going to have to ask the American people to change how they use energy. Everybody is going to have to change their light bulbs and insulate their homes. It's a sacrifice that we can meet." Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Democratic primary debate Jan 6, 2006 Source

So here comes the cap and trade. But the how is still up in the air. In the interests of full disclosure, this is an area I fully believe in, and I am not only involved with at least one business that would likely benefit from a US cap and trade, though also a few businesses that would likely suffer from a cap and trade.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, and a blogger for CNET's Cleantech blog, and the Chairman of Cleantech.org.

FutureGen is the major US Department of Energy backed effort to pilot a technological solution to prove that carbon capture and sequestration from coal fired power plants is possible. At a slated price tag of $1.5 Billion ($1 Bil estimated originally, now estimated at $1.8 Billion), it is one heck of a science project - but one that sorely needs to be done.

Now that project appears to have hit a snag. While the site the consortium picked to build the project was selected in December as Mattoon, Illinois, after a short delay in responding, the DOE is now hesitating to give formal approval - their Record of Decision.

The CEO of the FutureGen Alliance, Michael Mudd, seems confused as to why, though cost overruns, disagreements about the scope and technological objectives, and objections to moving to fast for good practice have been suggested.

After thinking about it this morning, I had a few initial reflections:

1. We are a nation of massive coal reserves and 50% of our power comes from coal generation. Investing in clean coal technology should definitely be a prime DOE objective. let's keep our comparative advantage in energy.

2. While CCS is likely to be an expensive way to abate greenhouse gases, if we are going to solve the global warming problem, we are going to need help from everything and the kitchen sink. Pilots exactly like this need to be tried.

3. At the kind of price tag and scale up risk we are talking about with CCS, government research support and funding is vital.

4. On a practical level, the Department of Energy is 74% of this project. I really do not understand why there should be any miscommunication. He who writes the checks makes the call. If they have real concerns over cost overruns, technology, or management, make the changes and get going.

There, I said it. Now let's just get it done, people.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairs Cleantech.org, and a blogger for the CNET Cleantech Blog.

The cleantech sector has developed as a major player in the fight against climate change. One of my friends, Dan Whaley, has founded a company called Climos to attack global warming in a new way, sinking massive amounts of carbon into the ocean depths using ocean iron fertilization. The approach has seen significant scientific study, but as he acknowledges, still has a ways to go to prove its effectiveness. That is where Climos comes in. The exciting part is the sheer scale of the potential carbon sequestration (on the order of a billion tons) and the low cost (possibly on the order of $5 to 7 per ton, according to Dan). Dan and Climos believe that they can use iron fertilization to sequester tremendous amounts of carbon, play a big part in reducing global warming, and use the carbon trading markets to finance the projects. I was also intrigued to learn more from Dan given the quality of the companies, like DNV and Ecosecurities (LSE:ECO.L), that Climos is working with to help design the carbon abatement methodology, and the care that Climos is taking to understand the environmental science. Like our own efforts in carbon, Dan believes in science and standards first. (On a personal note, I do not have a lot of choice in that matter, as my wife is an environmental scientist and statistician.) As a result, we asked Dan to do an interview with Cleantech Blog and tell us how they believe harnessing the power of the sea can play a big role in the fight against climate change.

Dan, you are one of the new class of technology entrepreneurs who is moving into cleantech. Can you share some of your background, and why you chose carbon?

In 1995 I founded the first company to commercialize travel reservations over the net, GetThere.com. We went public in 1999 and sold to Sabre in 2000. If you've booked a ticket on United Airlines' website, you've used an example of the infrastructure we built.

I think that entrepreneurs by nature love big challenges. We like to find opportunities where key technologies, services or business transformations can make a profound difference to the world. We understand that the missing ingredient we provide is the vision and the sheer will to make those transformations happen. We are perhaps at our best when the odds are against us, and when most people say we're crazy.

A few years ago, I drove from here down to Buenos Aires. Somewhere along the way, I think I woke up and really fully realized that there were some extraordinary challenges out there facing us that were much more pressing than most people had been giving them credit for. Challenges that were much more important than whether people could book their travel online, for instance. GetThere was a powerful lesson to me that I could set my mind to something and achieve it, but it was also a little numbing at times too--sometimes I wondered just exactly what I was really contributing to the world.

By contrast, the energy and environmental challenges we face as a species are exactly the kind of thing an entrepreneur likes to tackle head on. Plus it actually makes a difference whether we succeed or not.

Tell me a bit more about the concept of ocean fertilization and how it could abate C02? Why iron?

Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) was first proposed nearly 20 years ago by an oceanographer here in California named John Martin, at the time he was the Director of Moss Landing Marine Labs. He was the first to discover that iron was the trace nutrient limiting photosynthesis, and hence primary production, in most of the world's oceans.

Photosynthesis uses freely available sunlight to convert CO2 to organic material, which higher level organisms consume directly or which sinks into deep waters of the ocean to be sequestered for up to 1000 years. Clearly we need to lower our emissions dramatically, and immediately, but if atmospheric CO2 that we have already put into the atmosphere is ever to decline, it will be photosynthesis that eventually does the work.

Over the last billion years, phytoplankton (the micro algae that grows ubiquitously in the ocean) have helped to concentrate over 80% of all mobile carbon on the planet into the deep ocean. This process is referred to as the Biological Pump, where after plankton bloom, mature and die, they sink to the deep ocean, carrying carbon along with them. The deep ocean recirculates over very long time periods. The lag between downward flux and eventual recirculation creates an extremely effective trap. This process is probably easily 20-30x more effective at storing carbon than plant growth on land, which returns most carbon back to the atmosphere on short time scales (10-100 years).

A tiny amount of iron can stimulate a lot of phytoplankton growth. 12 publicly-funded, open ocean experiments over 15 years have shown this. The science community is now proposing the next generation of experiments, at moderate as opposed to small scale and potentially funded by private sources. We hope to answer the question just how much carbon is sequestered (not just grown), at what scale can this be done safely, and whether this can fit in to the market mechanisms that have evolved worldwide to fund the mitigation of carbon dioxide.

Who else is doing this and what exactly do you do differently as far as ocean fertilization goes?

Up until now, it has been purely been a research effort, with cruises funded by public agencies such as the National Science Foundation. There are now a few companies proposing to do this, though the primary competitor, Planktos, appears to be winding down operations due to problems fundraising. We decided to pursue this because we feel like this is one of the largest potential tools mankind might have to address global warming. Perhaps our primary differentiator is that we want to make sure that if this is done, it is done credibly and scientifically.

Our Chief Science Officer, Dr. Margaret Leinen left NSF in January. She was the head of Geosciences there and managed a $700M research budget. Her research career was in paleoceanography and biogeochemistry. Our Science Advisory Panel includes people such as Dr. Rita Colwell, the former Director of NSF, Dr. Tim Killeen, the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the recent President of the American Geophysical Union, Dr. Bob Gagosian, the former President of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Dr. Tom Lovejoy, the President of the Heinz Center, and so forth.

What is different about what is happening now is that the demonstrations of OIF will be larger, focused on different questions and also funded in part by the private sector. The carbon market is the mechanism that the world has chosen to fund emissions reductions and carbon mitigation, and so if OIF can be an effective way to safely remove CO2 from the atmosphere, that will probably be financed via the carbon market.

How will you verify that the abatement is happening?

To quantify the carbon removed, we deploy a range of sensors, the most important of which are called "Neutrally Bouyant Sediment Traps" to measure the amount of carbon falling past a certain depth in the ocean. Identical measurements are taken both inside the project area as well as outside the project area--this gives us an idea of what would have happened if we hadn't been there.

There are further nuances which are important to account for, such as how much carbon really ends up coming out of the atmosphere to replace that which is being used at the ocean's surface. Also, we will need to model the impact on nutrient stocks before they are replenished via deep winter mixing, etc. There many important other details, but this probably illustrates the basic concept.

Can you go into some more detail on the questions of permanence, always a major concern in new carbon reduction methodologies.

The permanence of storage is measured in choosing the depth we place the sensors at. This depth is determined by looking at what is called the ventilation or residence time of water at difference depths in the project area. Because the oceans circulate so slowly, most of the world's water mass, in fact the majority, has not seen the surface since before fossil fuels began being combusted in the late 1800s. I think that is a fairly surprising fact to most people. By sampling water at depth for signs of human activity which also have a known history, such as tritium from bomb testing in the 1950s or from CFCs that began being released in the 1920s, oceanographers can tell how long any cubic meter of water has been away from the surface.

Putting this to practice, if you sink carbon past water that hasn't seen the surface for 300 years, and if you know the directionality of circulation in that place in the ocean, you can be fairly sure that this carbon won't see the surface for at least 300 years moving forwards. This is how we understand permanence in addition to quantity.

The IPCC defines permanence as at least 100 years, so we will likely use this definition--but ultimately the carbon market will decide what that number is, not us. Keep in mind that significant amounts of carbon are stored for timeframes which are shorter as well, i.e. 75 years, 50 years, etc. This timeshifting of carbon is meaningful and helpful as well, but we won't claim credit for this. Also, the minimum (i.e. 100 years) is just that, the minimum. Much of the carbon will be stored for much longer--hundreds to even thousands of years.

Many people question the value of 'timeshifting' carbon. They wonder if we're creating a problem for ourselves later when this carbon comes back. There are several important things to consider here. First, we really have no other options--other than emissions reductions, which are important--but really separate. There is no other way to 'dispose' of the carbon that we've put up in the atmosphere already. Nature timeshifts carbon--at some point, nearly all carbon will see the atmosphere again, the question is on what timeframe. The effectiveness of sequestration in the ocean is the reason that the majority of 'mobile' carbon has ended up there over time. Second, this approach gives us time to address our emissions problem. People have likened this to a concept called 'oscillation damping', where if you have a pulse that takes time X (as in the number of years we have been adding too much CO2 to the atmosphere) then it may take you 2X or 3X or 4X to 'dampen' that pulse, depending on its amplitude. So if we've been creating this problem for 100 years, and it takes us another 25 years to solve, then we may have to mitigate for several multiples of that. This is an unscientific quantification, but perhaps a useful illustration--and I think it also serves to highlight what a huge challenge we have ahead of us.

Aren't you worried about the impact on the environment on "adjusting" ocean nutrients? I know that has been a concern of some environmental groups.

I think there are a number of distinct concerns rolled up in your statement. One is the fear that OIF is 'messing with mother nature.' Many people feel that humans simply can't get anything right, and that we if we try to fix what we've already broken, we're likely to make it worse. This is an unscientific attitude, and one that I think also fails to appreciate some of the unique aspects of this concept.

Other concerns are whether a change in the level of iron is potentially harmful, or whether the drawdown of existing macronutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and silicates (which is what the addition of iron triggers) could result in permanent shifts, or deplete productivity elsewhere--i.e. no net benefit. There are a number of answers for this.

First, this is already happening. Iron naturally fertilizes phytoplankton blooms--and these are the largest source of carbon sequestration happening as we speak. About three billion tons of CO2 is stored safely at depth in the ocean every year, and has been for a long time. Iron is a benign mineral. It in and of itself is simply not harmful.

Second, nature has already done more aggressive iron fertilization at scales much larger and for periods much longer than we are contemplating. During the last million years on at least five or six separate occasions between the major ice ages, natural iron inputs to the ocean increased by many times what they are now for thousands of years at a time. Productivity (i.e. plankton) increases appear strongly correlated with these times of increased iron. A recent paper by Cassar, et al this year has linked nearly 40ppm of the 80-100ppm swing of carbon in the last interglacial to increased iron enrichment of ocean waters by aerosol and other transport mechanisms. If iron fertilization simply removes nutrients that would have eventually been used elsewhere, then you would not have seen sustained productivity increases in the paleo record. Where we are now is a result of all of these previous episodes--and more than likely this will happen naturally again in the future, whether humans do it on purpose or not.

Lastly, OIF will be done gradually, over decades. It can be stopped at any time.

The key is to continue to explore this as a potential mitigation mechanism and to see whether it can be both effective and safe. Demonstrations run by scientists, and funded by the private sector which can deploy the capital required for the larger projects, are probably our best chance of this.

You intend to sell carbon credits based on this process. What standard will you use, and who do you expect will be the likely buyers?

Long term if this is to be meaningful it will need to be accepted in regulated markets, in the short term the voluntary market can help provide the bridge financing to get us there. We think the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) is probably the best current standard, but there are others as well. We'll target as many standards as appropriate. The methodology we are currently developing is designed around the UN Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) specification--though since it takes place in the middle of the ocean it will never qualify for those credits without changes to the regulatory framework.

You mentioned you approached the problem from the science, standards and measurement & verification end first. That's an approach I definitely agree with. Can you go into some more detail? I know you had mentioned working with DNV, among others.

A number of things need to be done before larger demonstrations like the one we propose.

First, the key science questions that will to be asked of this next generation of experiments need to be asked. We will be proposing a series of science workshops with the community this year to help facilitate that. One of the conferences will be on long term modeling. Another will be on measurement and verification techniques. We will be announcing these over the next several months.

Second, a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment needs to be performed by an outside party that reviews concerns in detail and against the peer-reviewed literature, identifying which are likely not an issue, which are questions of appropriate project design, and which need more study. We will be initiating this process over the next several months.

After these processes are complete we will begin to structure our proposed cruise, and publish this ahead of time. This also involves applying for appropriate international permits, etc.

DNV, or a company like that, will be involved in validating the Project Design Document (PDD) after we select a specific operating site, and before we actually go to sea. They will also come on the cruise to provide direct verification of the results.

Many of these general activities are called for by a document we produced last year which we call a Code of Conduct. We think that it is vital that companies like ours operate in a scientific, responsible and transparent manner.

So this process is kind of like planting trees, except in the ocean?

Yes, except it happens faster and the storage is more permanent. Forests store carbon in the form of standing biomass--in other words, you get storage for as long as the forest is managed and preserved. If it burns down, or gets harvested, a large part of that carbon is returned to the atmosphere. Also, if the tree dies and is not replaced, nearly all of that carbon is returned on short time scales (< 100 years). This is not to say that we shouldn't be planting trees. We should, and we are--the UN just finished planting a billion trees the week before the recent Bali conference. We need to be doing a lot more of that. Two of the most attractive aspects of ocean fertilization are low cost and large scale. Can you give us some insight into where ocean fertilization fits on the spectrum of cost and potential abatement levels?

We think credits from OIF can be delivered for about $5-7 a ton long term. No one knows what the annual global capacity might be. Certainly three billion tons a year (CO2) are already being done naturally. It is possible that another billion tons annually might be able to be added to this number, but that is pure speculation. Some people have quoted numbers that are much higher than this, but I think that's probably not a constructive exercise right now.

And of course, when do you expect to be able to offer credits off of this platform, now that the VCS has been released?

We have just received the first draft of the methodology back from Ecosecurities and DNV (Det Norske Veritas) is in the process of a formal assessment. After their comments, and possible revisions, we will submit the methodology to the VCS steering committee. They have told us they will require a 2nd formal review by a qualified verifier, after which it would qualify to be accepted as a VCS methodology.

We will also be asking other peers in the science community to help us evaluate and refine the methodology. They will certainly be the most important check. We expect it will be refined many times as measurement and modeling approaches improve.

The credits of course will be dependent on the successful completion of our first cruise. We expect this in 2009.

Dan, your OIF approach is certainly exciting given the scale and low cost of the potential CO2 abatement, and I wish you the best. It is certainly not a easy task.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairs Cleantech.org, and a blogger for the CNET Cleantech Blog.

Most Americans now agree that something needs to be done to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully most Americans now appreciate that this is not a small, but even more so, not a simple problem. I am a big believer that the playing field for our low carbon future should start level, and the market should be structured to allow our major power and energy companies a chance to lead the way, instead of simply dishing out punishment for our combined historical choices. Carrots and sticks work well together, but sticks alone are not going to solve our global carbon problem. I think it is also important to ensure that our carbon legislation does not result in a higher cost to consumers in middle America, just because the Midwest happens to have been historically coal fired, than the cost to those of us living on the coasts. Jim Rogers of Duke Energy puts this much more eloquently than I do.

Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK), one of the largest power companies in the U.S., has been a long supporter of energy efficiency, and known for being forward looking when it comes to a low carbon future, smart metering, and advanced energy technologies, despite having a generation fleet that is 70 percent coal fired. Cleantech Blog is delighted to welcome Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, to give us his thoughts on the devil in the details from their perspective. It is heartening to see a major power company take on the carbon issue full force, and like Duke has done, push energy efficiency in a big way.

- Neal Dikeman, Cleantechblog.com

By Jim Rogers Chairman, President and CEO of Duke Energy

As we debate our differences on how to address the challenge of global climate change, surely we can agree on the end-goal--a secure, sustainable and affordable supply of energy now, and for future generations.

Most Americans also agree that we must act now--and begin building a bridge to an energy-efficient, low-carbon economy.

As the third-largest coal consumer in the United States, and one of the largest greenhouse-gas emitters, Duke Energy has a responsibility to be part of the solution. That means looking at not only how climate change affects our business today, but also the implications for the future.

We support federal legislation to address global climate change by putting a cap-and-trade system in place. The U.S. Senate is in the process of vetting a cap-and-trade bill introduced by Senators Lieberman and Warner in October. This bill is well-intended, contains some good points, and appears to have bipartisan support.

But on closer examination, questions arise. Who really stands to gain, and who stands to lose? What are the real costs to average Americans?

You would expect the bridge to a low-carbon economy to have a cost, just as you might pay a toll to cross any bridge. But should some of us have to pay twice? With the Lieberman/Warner approach, that's exactly what would happen.

Lieberman/Warner proposes to auction a large number of emissions allowances to the highest bidder. In effect, an auction becomes a carbon tax, levied on consumers in the 25 states that depend on coal for electric power--primarily the Midwest, the Great Plains, and the Southeast.

Electric power customers in those regions would have to pay for the auctioned allowances upfront, and then pay again later to upgrade power plants, or build new ones, as carbon-control technologies become available.

A better approach is to allocate allowances at no cost to generators who emit greenhouse gases--and reduce the number of allowances over time, while new carbon-control technologies are being developed and put in place.

Some say that an auction is the only way to take action to reduce emissions, but history tells us otherwise. Allowances were not auctioned under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments; nearly 97 percent of them were allocated at no cost. Since then, new technologies to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have been developed and implemented. Those environmental controls have reduced emissions by more than 40 percent since 1990, and they continue to decrease, without dramatic rate hikes. In fact, the nation's average electric rates have declined.

In contrast, some estimates put the Lieberman/Warner bill's cost to the average family at more than $1,000 per year, while emissions traders would stand to profit greatly from a volatile market for carbon allowances. According to Bloomberg, the Lieberman/Warner bill would create a potential $300 billion annual carbon-trading market by 2020.

So the question comes down to this--are we interested in protecting consumers or enriching emissions traders?

Customers who live in the Midwest, the Great Plains, and the Southeast did not choose to get a large portion of their electricity from coal--it was a matter of economics, geography, and geology. They should not be punished for decisions made decades ago, in good faith, using the best and lowest-cost technology of the time, with regulatory approval--and long before anyone knew about the impact of carbon emissions on climate change.

And before we dismiss coal as a viable energy source for the future, consider this: The U.S. is sitting on more than 250 years of coal reserves, more than any other nation in the world. This rich natural resource has untapped potential for ensuring our country's energy security. The challenge is primarily technological--to find smarter and cleaner ways to use it, such as carbon capture and storage. Until those technologies are available, we must continue to use our existing coal resources and protect the interests of consumers who rely on coal.

The goal for carbon legislation should not be to punish utilities for building coal plants to keep the lights on in the past. It should be to create the incentives to put new clean technologies in place for the future--not just clean coal, but also nuclear and renewable energy, natural gas and the fifth fuel--energy efficiency.

Under the Lieberman/Warner approach, electric power customers in half of our states will carry a disproportionate share of the burden. We need to pass climate legislation that is fair to all consumers and protects the economic interests of all states and regions. Our climate is at stake, and so is our economy. By allocating most allowances, following the precedent set by the successful Clean Air Act, we believe both can be protected.

Jim Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, writing as a guest columnist on the Cleantech Blog.

I have mentioned my friend Justin Label, one of the partners at Bessemer Venture, before. Among other things he writes the Venture Again Blog. Bessemer is a highly respected old-line Silicon Valley venture capital firm. It has been an active investor in clean tech for a while, and is a backer of Miasole as well as SV Solar. I found myself on a plane recently with one his colleagues, Ted Lin. More than its investments, Lin was describing to me a new carbon friendly initiative that Bessemer itself is undertaking internally.

Its logic is simple, if it is investing in clean tech because it believes in being part of the global warming solution, not only making money, then it should practice what it preaches.

While still in its early days, it is targeting both its power and travel usage, and expects it will likely implement an internal reduction plan as well as purchasing offsets.

I asked Lin where this came from, and he said this initiative has come down from the top of the firm. It makes sense, and it is good to see the activity happening. My hat is off to the company.

Lin also pointed out that Bessemer is going to be buying offsets for its smaller portfolio companies (those under 50 people). "The goal is that when these companies grow into bigger companies and leave the nest, they will continue the tradition. We want them (our portfolio companies) to lead the next-generation of environmentally responsible enterprises."

One of the things he did ask: did I know any good offset providers? As with any venture capitalist, the company is looking for the "best of breed." So if you are interested in helping Bessemer, e-mail Lin at Ted@bvp.com.

Is Microsoft Vista global warming friendly? Could Vista be the best-selling clean-tech product in the world? I was thinking about this question the other day, and started e-mailing the Microsoft press relations folks looking for an answer.

The Microsoft answer--yes, it is. They have a recent release titled "Windows Vista Power Management Features Can Help U.K. Companies Reduce Their Carbon Footprint" on some independent research they had done by PC Pro Labs in the U.K.

Here's their quote:

"Windows Vista is Microsoft's most energy efficient operating system to date with its power management system, functionality, reliability and default settings focused on helping to reduce overall PC energy consumption. The key areas where the Sleep mode in Windows Vista has been improved compared to the equivalent Standby mode in Windows XP include:

• Enter Sleep mode after being inactive for 60 minutes
• In Windows Vista, it is much easier for users to change the power management settings themselves
• The Sleep mode is more reliable than Windows XP's Standby mode, both in terms of entering the mode and safely resuming back into Windows
• Windows Vista is much quicker at resuming from Sleep, now taking two to three seconds compared to five seconds for Windows XP."

They also published a white paper titled "Windows Vista Energy Conservation". Reading through it all, Vista does seem to be an energy efficiency masterpiece.

But I wonder--the description of these tests seemed to quite fairly compare the XP and Vista operating systems running through a series of different scenarios--but it's not a survey of real world conditions.

So I'm probably convinced that if you run the same computer post-Vista the exact same way you ran it on XP, that you'd use less power. Vista itself may actually be the best-selling clean-tech product in the world. But in the real world, we don't work that way. Each year we add a whole lot of new features and programs that suck down power, and buy more powerful PCs to run them on with every upgrade. And part of the promise of Vista is to enable even more such goodies--possibly offsetting the energy savings.

So are Windows users who have upgraded to Vista running the same programs in the same way, and the same (or more energy efficient PCs) and therefore using less power? Or are they actually using more or different features, or on a more powerful energy hog PC, and despite Microsoft's energy efficiency efforts, using more power on a daily basis anyway after the upgrade? That might not be something Microsoft could control--but I'm sure curious as to the answer from a carbon standpoint.

As a matter of full disclosure, I run XP at the office, Vista at home, own a small amount of Microsoft stock (and am a very big fan) and have a very bad habit of leaving my computer and monitor on--but I'm working on that.

It's been said before, but can't be said enough. This is not a technology problem. When it comes to fighting global warming, it's the little things we do that will make the difference.

The average American consumer is responsible for about 9-10 tons of carbon emissions per year.

The big three culprits for us consumers: 1) Car miles driven and car size; 2) Power used; 3) Airline miles flown

Here are my favorite little things:

1) When you have the option, drive the family car with the best gas mileage and drive together--no more three-car families driving to church in three separate cars. And my favorite, which I will harp on until the consumer gets it: when you buy that next car, don't worry about the hybrid or no-hybrid decision, just buy one size smaller than you were planning. It IS all about the size.

2) Look to your AC and heating bill--whether it's electric or gas, this is a biggie. Shorter (or colder) showers, adjusting the thermostat (or off during the day while you're gone), washing half your laundry in cold water, and for the love of grief, close the blinds during the day in the summer, and open them in the winter. We can make a difference.

The general rule of thumb is that if you just pay attention to your power bills, you can make small changes that save 10-20 percent.

And 3) When planning who's going where for Christmas and vacation, we now generally factor in price. Why not compare all the trips on carbon, too? Shorter is better, and the fewer of us who have to travel, the better off the planet is.

So why not do it? It's not just energy bills anymore; now it's all about the carbon.

In 1899 economist/sociologist Thorstein Veblen introduced the term Conspicuous Consumption to describe what he believed to be the evils of wealth accumulation in the nouveau riche upper class of the Gilded Age (Veblen was not exactly a "right wing" economist). You can best think of Conspicuous Consumption today as the notion that consumerism and "keeping up with the Joneses" drives economics.

One of my friends, Helen Priest from Meridian Energy, coined a new version of the term this week--conspicuous sustainability. She is here from New Zealand's largest (and all green) power company visiting Silicon Valley, and she's watching the torrent of activity around everything green and clean. It struck her that we are reinventing Conspicuous Consumption--keeping up with the Joneses in all things green. You have to wonder if solar panels or a LEEDs rating on a McMansion somehow doesn't miss the point.

So let's think: Al Gore's son gets arrested for doing 100 mph with marijuana in the car--in a Prius! (As I told one my friends, I didn't know they could go that fast.) Nouveau riche tech execs out here in Silicon Valley put ultraclean, and even more, ultraexpensive, solar power on their roofs. Buckingham Palace offsets the carbon footprint of the Queen's recent trip to the United States. Dell has Plant a Tree for Me Program, which I used when I bought a new Dell last month. There is an exponentially increasing number of examples of consumerism driving green.

But to be fair--conspicuous sustainability is pushing everything from the rapid growth in solar to the greening of corporate strategies like General Electric's Ecomagination, BP's Beyond Petroleum and General Motor's Live Green, Go Yellow. It's pushing hybrid electric sales, fuel cells to power our PDAs and carbon offsets--all good things for the environment.

I put the term to my friend, green business guru Joel Makower, and he quickly agreed that conspicuous sustainability is exactly the term for our age (We didn't discuss whether it was good or bad). Joel's response was, "I think the quintessential symbol for the conspicuous sustainability age would be the carbon-neutral Hummer." Or maybe Gore's carbon-neutral 10,000 (square foot) San Francisco home. He also said "And then there's Moskito, Richard Branson's privately owned Caribbean island, which he wants to be carbon neutral..."

In Veblen's mind, Conspicuous Consumption was a very bad thing, but for green tech and the environmental movement, is conspicuous sustainability a good one?

Last year the government of Abu Dhabi made a splash in energy investment circles by anchoring a cleantech fund:

As described on News.com just two months ago:

"One of the more ambitious related projects in the Mideast is Masdar, a $250 million clean-tech investment fund unfurled last year. The government of Abu Dhabi (through Abu Dhabi Future Energy) has put $100 million into Masdar, while Credit Suisse and the Consensus Business Group have put in $100 million and $50 million, respectively. Masdar, which means "source" in Arabic, also plans to set up a think tank with the national water and oil companies."

I had a chance to listen to Alex O'cinneide, one of their investment executives, speak at GreenVest 2007, the recent greentech investing conference I chaired in San Francisco. Speaking to a room of venture capitalists, startups, and industry executives, there were a number of lessons for the rest of us.

In a simple equation:

Oil $ = solar + low carbon + hydrogen

Abu Dhabi is investing in energy innovation and sustainability through the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, which Masdar is the $250 million technology investment arm.

Among some of the more exciting initiatives, Masdar is developing a 100 MW solar thermal plant using parabolic troughs, expecting to build expertise and capabilities for export of this type of technology, not just as a showcase. I am a big fan of the future of large scale solar thermal technology. But Abu Dhabi is also looking at silicon photovoltaics and thin film as well, in a big way.

They are studying a 1 GW hydrogen plant, and tieing that in with carbon credits under Kyoto, and enhanced oil recovery using CO2 injection.

Of keen note, Abu Dhabi is not just doing this for today's energy consumption, they are investing across the spectrum in research, venture capital, and large demonstration as a way to build expertise and gain technology to help underpin a post oil economy - and perhaps be a major exporter of the next generation of energy, too. Hence, their Future Energy company.

I say more power to them . . . and we in the US better not fall behind.