How about perks not for zooming across thousands of miles in a fossil-fueled jet, but for zero emission miles? Consumers who collect miles for zero-emissions travel — say, bike riding — could swap them for a cool gadget, like an Apple iPhone, paid for by companies or other individuals who need or want to cut carbon emissions, for example.

That’s an idea from Volvo Group, the global heavy duty transportation company, and its environmental initiative at Commute Greener, which offers an application for consumers, businesses and governments track their carbon footprint and meet goals to cut their emissions.

Volvo’s Magnus Holmqvist said it’s not clear how the market for zero emissions miles for consumers will take shape, but he believes it could help spur people to change their behavior.

We were wondering if readers think a mass market could develop for individual carbon tracking — not just for big corporations — and whether a set of perks would lead people to ride their bike to work instead of driving a vehicle?

(Photo:  A woman rides a bicycle on Chang’an avenue in central Beijing  Photo credit: Jason Lee / Reuters)

– Kathy Nieland is U.S. Sustainability and Climate Change leader for global accounting and advisory firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. She also serves on the independent, not-for-profit Carbon Disclosure Project. The views expressed are her own. –

If you think the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new interpretative guidance on disclosing the risks of climate change applies only to big polluters, think again.

The guidance is evidence that the SEC views climate change as among the potential business risks that companies should evaluate and disclose.

It clarifies that public companies will need to evaluate the potential material impact of legislation, regulation and international accords related to climate change. Companies in every industry will need to use this guidance and make a determination if climate change poses material risks to their supply chains, distribution networks and physical assets. This may include, but is not limited to, severe weather events, scarcer water supplies and changes in demand for resources such as heating fuel, for example.

This means chocolate companies will have to assess the impact of climate change on cocoa bean production, clothing apparel manufacturers will have to look at the effect on cotton crops and financial services firms will have to evaluate the impact on their lending portfolios.

Indeed, industries of all kinds must assess the potential impact of climate change — or any environmental occurrence — on the condition and availability of the raw materials and natural resources on which their businesses depend.

Given the nature of what companies will need to evaluate, they may have to turn to outside experts for help in parsing out the known risk factors from the unknowns. This will give management the basis they need to evaluate their disclosure requirements.

For example, some companies may seek out scientists who specialize in biodiversity issues or others may ask a team of political scientists and environmental engineers to help them identify how mandates to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions should change their assumptions about risk. Implications on the supply chain, in particular, will present challenges for almost every company.

After evaluating the risks, companies may decide that they aren’t material and that they don’t need to be disclosed, but it won’t be just a point-in-time inventory. Companies will need to figure out how to monitor these risks going forward and adjust their need for disclosure accordingly. This is beyond what most companies are doing now. Companies that already participate in voluntary disclosure programs like the Carbon Disclosure Project already practice some level of monitoring climate-related risk, but the level of disclosure varies widely among companies.

By making it clear that climate-related disclosures are required under federal securities law, the SEC is raising the stakes for officials at public companies who have been under pressure from investors to make these disclosures.

The SEC is now putting public company officials on notice that they expect analysis that is robust and that corporate financial reporting should reflect this, if material. For public companies, even those that are not big polluters, the issues of climate change could still have an impact on their business. The bottom line is that all public filers will need to do some regular evaluation of the impact of climate change and determine what type of disclosure, if any, is required.

Photo shows the headquarters of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, July 6, 2009. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own

President Barack Obama read the last rites for national cap and trade in 2010 on Feb. 2, while senior Democrats in the House of Representatives prepared to put a stake through its heart to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency does not try to resurrect it unilaterally without congressional approval.

Obama finally bowed to the inevitable and admitted cap and trade might need to be separated from a more popular green jobs bill in the Senate, a shift that would effectively end prospects for cap and trade in 2010.

In a question-and-answer session the president commented: “The only thing I would say about it is this: We may be able to separate these things out. And it’s possible that’s where the Senate ends up.”

Obama made no mention of cap and trade in his State of the Union speech last week and it was absent from the list of priorities the president outlined in a meeting with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, when he called on them to “finish the job” on healthcare and financial reform.

Revenues from the sale of emissions permits have been stripped out of the president’s proposed budget — unlike last year when they were included.

Cap and trade looked impossible to do in any event following the Democratic Party’s string of election defeats over the past four months and amid mounting unpopularity.

But by admitting that it could be stripped out of the main legislation Obama essentially removed any last momentum for the controversial programme in the Senate and condemned it to defeat.

With the president now backing away from cap and trade, there is no real prospect EPA will press ahead regulating greenhouse gas emissions under its (contested) authority under the Clean Air Act. A unilateral move would be inherently political and could only come if it was sanctioned by the White House. In the current environment there is no chance of that.

PROHIBITING EPA ACTION

Just to make sure, two senior Democrats said Tuesday they would introduce legislation forbidding EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the CAA. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (Dem, Missouri) and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (Dem, Minnesota) promised to introduce a bill amending the CAA to make it clear that it does not allow for regulation of greenhouse gases.

Skelton bluntly argued “we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emission to unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. It appears the clean energy bill moving through Congress is stalled. Let us set that bill aside and pass this scaled back energy legislation.”

In a similar vein, Peterson said, “I have no confidence that EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act without severe harm to all taxpayers.” Although the bill not may go anywhere, it underscores congressional hostility to a unilateral move by EPA.

HOUSE MAJORITY DISAPPEARS

Neither Skelton nor Peterson is in the “chain of command” on climate legislation. But both are among the most senior Democrats in the House and immensely influential.

Crucially, both voted for the climate bill the first time around last year (Roll Call 477), when 44 other Democrats rebelled and the bill scraped through by a majority of just seven votes (219-212).

If Skelton and Peterson now oppose the cap and trade component, the bill’s majority has effectively disappeared.

Their hostility is significant for who they are and whom they represent. Both represent conservative-leaning districts that voted for Senator John McCain rather than Obama in 2008. Skelton’s fourth district in Missouri broke 61-38 for McCain, while Peterson’s seventh district in Minnesota broke 50-47, according to data compiled by the Swing State Project.

They are among the long tail of “vulnerable” Democrats who face the voters in November and cannot rely on the president’s own (reduced) popularity to protect them. Previously loyal, they are now moving into opposition on climate issues.

LOSING THE RURAL INTERIOR

Crucially, Skelton’s Missouri is famed as the ultimate bellwether state in presidential elections — having voted for the winner in every election between 1904 and 2004 (voting for the loser only in 1956 and 2008, when it went for McCain).

It is now arguably less important as a swing state than Ohio, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico. But even in 2008, Obama lost the state by less than 4,000 votes (0.1 percent) out of a total of almost 3 million cast. While Missouri was not part of Obama’s winning coalition, it is a state he cannot afford to write off, given his potential vulnerability in other parts of the country, which has been amply demonstrated, even on the coasts.

If cap and trade is not viable in Missouri, and with representatives like Skelton and Peterson, it is no longer viable in the current Congress. Since there is no point pushing water up hill, the administration is now abandoning it.

Image shows people watching an illuminated so-called CO2 cube pictured in the water of St Jorgens Lake in front of Tycho Brahe Planetarium in Copenhagen, December 7, 2009. The cube visually shows the amount of carbon dioxide produced by an average person in one month. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski

Just last month, Walmart announced that it would be moving to eliminate non-biodegradable plastic bags from stores across the United States to reduce their collection in landfills. While they’ve demonstrated positive green initiatives, this week there’s been accusations of hypocrisy because they’ve been passing off a harmful, manufactured textile as sustainable.

Environmental advocates had been applauding Walmart for their plastic bag reduction goals and the installation of more energy-efficient systems. For example, coolers that only light up when a shopper’s presence is detected. So this new accusation from the Federal Trade Commission comes at a bad time.

Walmart, along with many other big box and chain stores across the United States, has been selling products as bamboo that are actually rayon. It is a textile shrouded in debate, because it contains cellulose that is naturally occurring. However, it does require an extensive manufacturing process to produce.

Regardless of whether rayon is natural or not; it’s definitely not bamboo. This labelling misleads consumers who think that they’re purchasing clothing and other home goods made from one of the most sustainable materials on the planet.

As we’ve seen a lot lately, proper regulation and disclosure is a common issue when it comes to things labelled green.

See the original version of the story at GlobalPost.com.

More from GlobalPost:

Regulating green building codes

Unique projects promote environmentalism

Vancouver 2010 Olympics recognized for environmental progress

Skepticism about Energy Star savings

David Rockefeller, Jr., a philanthropist, is sponsoring a year-long sailing trip around the Americas looking at environmental impacts on the oceans — from melting ice to fish farms. Here are his thoughts after stepping aboard the voyage for two weeks around Cape Horn.  The views expressed are his own.

For climbers, there is just one Everest.  For sailors, there is just one Cape Horn – the southernmost piece of the American Continents, and often the windiest, most treacherous place in all the oceans.

Eight of us voyagers recently sailed around “the Horn” on a boat called Ocean Watch.  We flew a billowing spinnaker with a graphic of the two American continents and a mainsail sporting our own expedition logo, “Around the Americas, 2009-2010.”  A flock of thirty albatross rode the surprisingly benign ocean swells.  Two breakfasting cruise ships gave scale to the forbidding cliffs.

Ten years ago I sat on the Pew Ocean Commission and learned in startling detail that our boundless seas had become imperiled by the careless behavior of a rapidly expanding human population and its post-industrial habits of taking, making and disposing.

As a result, I determined to do something to let other sailors know what I had learned: for example, that hyper-efficient fishing vessels had removed 90 percent of the large fish from the world’s oceans in just fifty years.

I created Sailors for the Sea, a non-profit organization designed to turn recreational boaters into Ocean Stewards.  Then, four years ago in the port of Naples, Italy – Mark Schrader, David Treadway and I (all members of the crew that just rounded Cape Horn) came up with an idea to circumnavigate the two American continents by sail and draw attention to the serious health challenges faced by the world’s oceans.

In partnership with Seattle’s Pacific Science Center we would call the expedition “Around the Americas.”  We are making fifty stops along the way, meeting with and listening to fishermen, scientists, schoolchildren and public officials at each stop.  We’re conducting scientific experiments on board – measuring water temperature, salinity and acidity – and telling our story at Yacht Clubs and Museums.

Ocean Watch left Seattle, Washington, under the command of Captain Mark Schrader on May 31st of last year.  It made its way through the shifting sea ice of the Northwest Passage, gales west of Greenland, adverse ocean currents off the coast of Brazil, and finally arrived at the southernmost tip of Patagonia, Chile, where the crew waited out a twenty-four hour gale before rounding Cape Horn.

So what have we learned?  The sea ice is melting, and ships are making it through Arctic waters as never before. Farmed fish have now surpassed wild caught fish as a source of human protein.  Cruise ships have become the tour buses of the sea.  CO2, when it descends into the sea in great amounts, can threaten the viability of corals, shellfish and – indeed – the entire web of ocean life.

As Ocean Watch now begins its passage north from Cape Horn to Seattle, we have many stories to tell: of bravery, of natural wonders and dramatic weather; but also of  an ocean in trouble.  Watch this space, Mate, I will be writing pieces about fish farms and what observations  are telling us about the health of our seas.

Photos show the view from the Ocean Watch as it sails around Cape Horn on Jan 24, 2010. Image below shows Captain Mark Schrader. REUTERS/Handout/David Thoreson

Today the global megatrends of food security, energy security, global climate change and sustainability command the attention of nations worldwide.  Confronting these challenges will test political systems, drive policy and stress international relations.

To address them successfully, nations and companies are making massive investments in R&D, seeking solutions that will drive global innovation for decades.  The application of modern discoveries in biology and biocleantechnology will be a major enabling force to address these issues.

Indeed, the application of bio-clean technology can potentially mitigate many of Europe’s ecological and economic challenges.  The markets for bio-based (or green) products and technologies made from agricultural waste -- instead of oil -- are currently large and open.

However, the public and private sector must act now otherwise we will miss a huge opportunity to generate economic value and delay will only worsen our environmental predicament.  Access to innovation must be global in nature as no country has the resources necessary to discover, develop, and implement solutions.  Furthermore, the problem and therefore the solution knows no national boundaries.

The Netherlands are a first-class example of how bio-clean technology can and should drive a new wave of innovation.

Much of the Dutch economy is founded on the immediate post-Second World War industrial wave that brought the likes of Shell, DSM, Phillips and Unilever to global prominence.  In recent decades, the economy consolidated with competitive and entrepreneurial potential under-utilised.

A new wave of industrial innovation for the country is now badly needed to tackle the rise of the BRIC-economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the recent financial down-turn, not to mention the vulnerable, climate-sensitive Dutch delta region (with about 50 percent of the country below the rising sea level) which will be affected by the consequences of energy security and climate change.

Bio-clean technology can power that new wave of innovation.  The Netherlands have consistently worked to implement a number of national public-private innovation programmes around the topic of bio-based and other clean technologies that are now starting to pay off in a major way, and within which there will be attractive near- to mid-term private-sector investment opportunities.

Earlier this month, a new wave of public-private R&D investments exceeding 0.5 billion euros was launched, including:

*       large-scale initiatives on industrial biotechnology and biorenewables (BE-Basic),
*       direct solar to chemicals and energy production (Biosolar),
*       process intensification, carbon capture and storage (CATO) and others.

This large package of bio-clean technology also forms the backbone of the recently awarded CLIMATE KIC by the European Institute of Technology.

The participants in the Netherlands’ public-private programmes include major Dutch companies (DSM, AKZO Nobel) and Universities (Delft University of Technology as well as Groningen, Utrecht and Wageningen Universities) and also other premier European academic institutes such as London’s Imperial College, the German technical universities of Dortmund and Karlruhe, and also a number of institutions outside Europe such as the Energy Bioscience Institute of UC Berkeley.

An important driver is the potential to establish a sustainable bio-based economy for the production of chemicals, materials and transportation fuels.  This could also add further value to the residues of a food producing agricultural sector.  We are well on our way to converting biomass into a range of renewable chemical and materials.

Applications of biotechnology in the chemical and energy industries are already resulting in sustainable sources of second generation biofuels, biocatalysts and renewable chemicals, meeting the growing demand for energy and renewable materials.

Thus, bio and clean technologies will be major contributors to addressing the challenges posed by the global megatrends of food security, energy security, climate change, and sustainability.  With the continued success of these technologies, exciting investment opportunities exist within and across the agricultural, chemical and energy sectors.

Prudent investments in technology-rich, private companies that contribute viable solutions should generate attractive returns to venture investors while addressing important societal issues.

This requires investments in companies at two stages;

*       early on, in companies with potentially disruptive or broadly applicable technologies, and,
*       later on, in the adaption and commercialization of proven technologies for new markets.

Companies invested in this way will be well positioned to succeed in global markets and be attractive acquisition targets for global chemical, energy and agricultural companies or for IPOs in ready markets throughout the world.  At present, Northern Europe is a most promising place for these governmental and private investments given the solid home market with a clear consumer awareness about sustainability and resource security, a world class R&D potential, and a well established industry and logistic infrastructure, that needs to be reshaped toward the challenges of the future generation.

However, two key challenges lie in the way of us realising this vision.

First, Europe needs to better connect the flow of scientific and technological concepts from the large pool of sustainable bioclean technology initiatives into the generation of new companies, jobs and economic growth. Given the substantial amount of public resources in these programmes, novel mechanisms will have to be implemented to guarantee clear returns to the public purse.

The second challenge is to stimulate activities that also lead to climate adaptation (most bioclean tech programs target mitigation only).  This is crucial, for instance, for the Netherlands given that 50 percent of its land is below the rising sea-level.

The well known Dutch expertise in water and delta management -- much of which was developed at Delft University of Technology -- has to be advanced further.  Interesting examples have arisen, for instance, in the BE-Basic program from the exploration of biogrouting,  bioconstruction materials and other completely new bio-based mechanisms leading to new ways to build dikes and enforce weak soils.

If we can surmount these twin challenges, and by harnessing the major biocleantech innovation wave, the prize for Europe will be not only positive climate effects and energy security but the foundation-stone for a new generation of sustainable, economic growth.

Why do politicians and the media often discuss global warming with such certainty, ignoring the scientists' carefully worded caveats?

And how much harder will it be to persuade the sceptics after the uproar over whether scientists exaggerated unreliable evidence or colluded to withhold information to strengthen their case?

Those tricky questions were raised at a sometimes fractious news conference in London to discuss the future of climate science.

Three leading British scientists told reporters the science behind anthropogenic global warming was "overwhelming", but admitted they are struggling to get their message across to a sometimes doubtful public.

"We have a very confused public out there about climate change and science," said Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met Office. "We've got a real issue about communicating science in a very clear way that different levels of the public can understand. "

The problem, the panel suggested, lies not in the raw data but in how the information becomes garbled between the researchers and the public.

The executive summaries of lengthy scientific reports that are presented to politicians tend to iron out the experts' nuances and uncertainties. Media reports can then further simplify and exaggerate the evidence, the panel said.

"Uncertainty tends to get lost in the headline," said Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London.

Confusion over the difference between long-term climate patterns and short-term weather has further muddied the waters, they said. If parts of the world had a particularly cold winter or a rainy summer, why should anyone believe the evidence behind manmade global warming, doubters ask.

That sort of confusion can only be addressed by getting basic scientific messages across to the public more clearly, Slingo added.

"(We must) expose the fundamental science behind climate change, which is very robust actually," she said.

The scientists said they must also regain the public's trust after damaging headlines about hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's climate research unit and the reliability of evidence used by the United Nation's climate change body in its key report on the topic.

Hoskins said the IPCC's mistaken claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 should not be allowed to undermine the  rest of the U.N. panel's work or the broader evidence for climate change.

"Just because you have a miscarriage of justice, it doesn't mean you throw away the whole legal system," Hoskins told the briefing at the Science Media Centre, part of the historic Royal Institution, the world's oldest independent research body.

The questions grew tougher when none of the panel members agreed to discuss the leaked email row, dubbed "Climategate". One reporter from a national newspaper said the scientists had failed to explain why internet forums are full of people who just don't believe the science behind manmade global warming.

“Call me naïve, but I came here today expecting a confident fightback from climate science and I haven’t heard that," the reporter said. "You are not addressing head on and robustly the issue of perception in the way you need to do."

The panellists refused to budge, however. They would not talk about the leaked emails until an inquiry reports its findings.

They also refused to say if the IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri should resign over the glacier claim.

They wanted to stick firmly to the science and said they would always be willing to examine any credible evidence from climate change sceptics.

"I'm sorry if you feel it is not adequate, but it is where the scientific community has to be. We just simply have to do the research and bring the scientific evidence to the table," said Professor Alan Thorpe, a climate scientist who is also chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council.

Now, China’s Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is making a play to raise its global profile.  It’s taking its solar panels to the world’s biggest sporting event, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, and has signed up to help sponsor the event.

The news makes Yingli the first renewable energy company to sponsor the World Cup — where the world’s best football (or soccer for U.S. fans) teams compete —  as well as the first Chinese company to seal a global sponsorship deal with FIFA, the world’s governing body for football.

(The Wold Cup this year, coincidentally, is in South Africa, which announced last year government support for solar akin to solar incentives in Germany, the world’s largest market.)

The move reflects Yingli’s desire to increase its brand awareness. And that could pay off, Piper Jaffray analyst Jesse Pichel says.

“With a minimal investment, (Yingli) will be able to leverage the FIFA marketing machine, the Yingli brand will catch millions of viewers’ eyes, sitting side by side with the most powerful consumer brands in the world like Coca Cola, Adidas, and Sony, and (Yingli) will further improve its bankability,” Pichel said in a note.

Some solar power companies — such as Silicon Valley-based SunPower Corp — already have branding and marketing campaigns targeted at consumers.

We were wondering whether readers think Yingli’s move with the World Cup will push more solar players into the marketing field, and how key will that be in an industry that wants to drive down costs?

(Photo credit: Indonesian Football Association chief Nurdin Halid gestures beside the FIFA World Cup trophy in Jakarta. The trophy arrived in Jakarta in January as part of its world tour. Photo credit: Crack Palinggi / Reuters) 

Asia's Largest Solar Power Plant in Kaohsiung, Taiwan from Nicky Loh on Vimeo.

The first time lapse sequence was shot over a period of one hour at 1 frame every two seconds on a lens baby. I chose to use still photography to capture the time lapse over video as the movement of the panels was so small that a continuous one hour raw video file on the 5D MKII would have crashed my computer.

The second time lapse sequence featuring the overview of Kaohsiung City, used to illustrate a city gaining electricity, was shot over a 3 hour period, at 1 frame every 4 seconds, from inside a hotel with an overview of the city. Because the hotel room lights reflect on the glass panel of the hotel room window which I shot through, I had to sit in the dark for nearly two hours for the camera to finish snapping.

Regardless of their views on climate change and man’s contribution to it, most business leaders agree on one point – as fossil fuels get scarcer and the UK decarbonises our economy, our energy prices will continue to rise.

The UK’s recent cold snap gave us a foretaste of what we could be in for – with some businesses having their gas supplies cut to relieve pressure on pipelines - although it appears that the widely reported claim that the UK had just eight days’ gas supply left was political bluster and scaremongering.

The Department of Business, Energy and Regulatory Reform’s 2008 Energy Markets Outlook projects that the UK could rely on imports for 80 percent of its gas needs by 2020, with huge implications for cost and energy security – and that income pouring out of the country.  And the International Energy Association forecasts serious energy "crunches" occurring within the next 10 years.

As all effective CEOs know, good business isn’t just about keeping your costs down, it’s about forecasting your costs with a degree of certainty.

When it comes to energy, investing in decentralised renewable generation doesn’t just give businesses good environmental credentials – increasingly important for today’s consumers – but control over their energy costs, with accompanying financial and competitive benefits.

Such investments - where the fuel, be it wind, sunshine, biomass or water, is effectively free - can enable a firm to set its energy prices with relative certainty for the next 20 years, providing an effective hedge against the unpredictable gas and electricity markets.

So, it’s not surprising then that the UK’s more enlightened and forward thinking businesses are taking steps now to safeguard their future energy security, by investing in their own renewable generation capacity.

BT is a prime example: its wind farm initiative, Wind for change, claims to be the UK’s biggest corporate green energy project outside the energy sector. It’s aiming to meet a quarter of its very large electricity needs from renewables by 2016 – that’d be enough to power 122,000 homes.

But it isn’t just the big behemoths that are sitting up and taking notice. Among Good Energy’s community of over 1000 independent generators are several small businesses who recognise that generating their own power makes sound commercial sense.

For example, Mackie’s, an ice cream manufacturer based in Aberdeenshire, has three wind turbines generating 7,500 MWh a year – the equivalent to powering 2,000 homes.  This powers their factory and provides them with an additional income from their land for power that they export.

And what is good business sense, is good for the economy too. We’ve been hearing lots lately about how the green sector is going to lead the UK out of recession.

A recent report from the Renewable Energy Association strengthens the case for green economic investment by crunching some numbers – it forecasts that by 2020 the UK’s trade balance could benefit to the tune of 12.6 billion pounds a year simply by implementing better energy efficiency and investment in renewables.

Worth thinking about?  Rather than British Steel or British Coal – we should start thinking about British Wind and British Sun as a future resource base for the UK – it’s a shame to waste cash from UK industry on someone else’s oil and gas.