New Pub from Monitor Institute

Just checking out what the Monitor Institute had to say about investing for impact and was pleasantly surprised to find E+Co highlighted in the publication.

Check it out at: http://www.eandco.net/BlogEntry-32.html

Cowboy or Cookstove: Making Carbon About More Than Just Climate

Five years ago, few would have anticipated that the purchase of carbon offsets could be at the center of a mainstream market. This month, however, the US inaugurated a president that strongly supports cap-and-trade as a primary policy mechanism to address climate change.

Whether a US cap-and-trade system promotes clean energy in the developing world, however, is largely dependant upon the extent to which domestic polluters are allowed to purchase carbon offsets from abroad. Allowing polluters in the US to supplement their own greenhouse gas mitigation efforts with cuts abroad will not only be more cost effective, but would also help to address the longstanding gulf between rich and poor that is so central to the climate debate.

Carbon offsets compensate for greenhouse gas emissions by allowing polluters to purchase pollution rights from projects that abate pollution elsewhere. Since the cost of greenhouse gas abatement varies greatly between different economies and different sectors, this allows companies to target least cost emission reductions. In theory, this should be equally effective as reductions in ones own company or nation since avoided greenhouse gas emissions in Nepal have an equal climatic effect as avoided greenhouse gas emissions in New York. But such mechanisms have to be effective and without policy loopholes.

Journalists cleverly invoked the term "Carbon Cowboy" to describe a business person who seeks exorbitant profits from loopholes in international climate treaties to the detriment of developing country economies and sustained environmental impact. Others have suggested that carbon offsets merely placate guilt-ridden polluters while boasting meager environmental gains. Yet if implemented using lessons learned from the past and streamlining the approach used under the Kyoto Protocol, the US could implement an effective approach that includes offsets as a centerpiece of legislation.

To date, domestic and international offsets have been featured in multiple draft climate bills in the US. While some lack any offset component, others allow varying amounts of offsets sourced from the US and abroad. It is unclear at this point what model the Federal government will follow to craft climate legislation, or even when such legislation will emerge, but for the first time in 8 years, the political will exists to tackle this difficult question.

In December, 2009, representatives from nearly every nation will meet in Copenhagen to consider how to address climate change after 2012, the year when the Kyoto Protocol expires. Time is running short to strike such a deal since investors are already fleeing the carbon markets due to uncertainty, and more importantly, the world isn't getting any cooler. US leadership will be integral to striking a deal during this meeting, while the positions of other major polluters such as China, India and other poorer nations will be integral to a renewed treaty. This is why the world's developing economies need something in a global treaty from which they will benefit: enter carbon offsets.

Wealthy nations have powered their economies with fossil fuels for more than a century. Nevertheless, today's developed nations call on industrializing economies to embrace cleaner fuels. It is not surprising that these governments balk at climate commitments that fail to transfer capital and technological know how that addresses poverty in their quest to tackle global warming. This is why offsets will be a critical tool for successfully negotiating a post-2012 climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

If implemented effectively, offsets can have a meaningful impact on poverty reduction efforts in some of the poorest nations. Consider Mali, where the World Health Organization estimates more than 95% of the population cooks with inefficient charcoal and wood stoves. In addition to causing deforestation and global warming, this practice kills tens of thousands of Malians each year from indoor air pollution. Mr. Ousmane Samassekou is a Malian entrepreneur whose company manufactures super-efficient stoves. These stoves slash deadly pollution and greenhouse gas emissions nearly in half.

Samassekou, an E+Co investee, will soon sell carbon offsets from his stoves through E+Co to Goldman Sachs. The revenues from sale will be split between E+Co and Samassekou. E+Co's share will fund business training for entrepreneurs like Samassekou, a key ingredient to a company's success, while Samassekou's share will allow his company to lower its prices so even the poorest Malians can afford this life saving technology.

Before we allow pundits to dismiss greenhouse gas offsets as riddled with fraud or simply a polluter's enabler, we should consider the host of benefits that they offer. When coupled with reductions at home, carbon offsets offer wealthy nations a less expensive way to curb emissions as they invest in the poor. This investment curbs greenhouse gas emissions and reduces poverty, allowing even the poorest Malians to breathe easier. Perhaps these ingredients will underpin an inclusive and effective multilateral global climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

Can the greatest thing about 2008 help support E+Co?

In 2007 I got a new puppy. He is so awesome that I declared him the best thing about 2007. I am ashamed to admit, but the best thing about 2008 was...

the iPhone. I love my iPhone. And I don't even like technology. Everyone I know loves their iPhone. This morning a friend's facebook status read "I am going to attribute everything good that happens to me this year to my iPhone." It's silly, I know, but I can verbally ask my iPhone questions, my iPhone can give me a view from space of the place I am at that very moment, obviously I can make phone calls (starting to seem rather outdated ((the phone calls, not the iPhone)), surf the internet, listen to music, take pictures and probably a ton of stuff I don't even know about yet. I could really go on and on, but that is not the point here.

The point is I read a blog post on the Inspired Economist this morning that talks about using the iPhone as a fundraising and advocacy tool:

So, why wouldn't our love affair with the iPhone help us make the world a better place? Why wouldn't our obsessive usage create perfect opportunities for capturing micro-donation portals to make contributions to the micro-finance or giving sites of Kiva or Global Giving? What about a carbon calculator that lets you immediately link to an offset purchase equivalent to the inquiry? It would seem that millions of tiny donations could add up to lots of impact. It seems possible, and even more so fun.

The author had lots of great ideas of how it might be possible to raise money using the iPhone, and I have one more:

What about an application that allows you to use solar power to charge your iPhone (it already looks like a little solar panel, doesn't it?). Every time the application is downloaded, something like 20 cents would go to E+Co to support clean energy in developing countries. I know it seems crazy, but the iPhone can do everything else, why can't it be clean? iPhone users would be using less energy to use their toy and would also be contributing to clean energy in some of the world's poorest places.

Is Steve Jobs back on duty yet? If so, we need to tell him about my big idea.