UNEP NEWS RELEASE: Green Goes Mainstream: Biodiversity Is Climbing the Corporate Agenda.
July 13, 2010

from James Sniffen :

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Business Report.

Green Goes Mainstream: Biodiversity Is Climbing the Corporate Agenda.
Companies with ‘Net Positive Impact’ on Biological Diversity are Winners in
Resource-Constrained World.

One in four global CEOs sees biodiversity loss as a strategic issue for
business growth: Latin American and African CEOs are most concerned about
impacts of biodiversity loss on business growth prospects—European CEOs are
least concerned.

————

13 July, 2010 – Business leaders in biodiversity-rich developing economies
are concerned about losses of “natural capital”, a new report launched
today highlights.

Over 50 per cent of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) surveyed in Latin
America and 45 per cent in Africa see declines in biodiversity as a
challenge to business growth. In contrast, less than 20 per cent of their
counterparts in Western Europe share such concerns.

The findings, compiled by a study of “The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity” (TEEB), indicate that those corporate chiefs who fail to make
sustainable management of biodiversity part of their business plans may
find themselves increasingly out of step with the market place.

Another recent survey, also spotlighted in the TEEB report for business,
shows rising interest among consumers with 60 per cent of those surveyed in
America and Europe and over 90 per cent in Brazil aware of biodiversity
loss.

Over 80 per cent of those consumers surveyed said they would stop buying
products from companies that disregard ethical considerations in their
sourcing practices.

The “TEEB for Business” report indicates that scrutiny of big business and
its impacts on the world’s natural capital is likely to intensify as better
evaluations and assessments come to the fore.

The UK-based consultancy TruCost, on behalf of the UN’s Principles for
Responsible Investment, is set to publish a study on the activities of the
world’s top 3,000 listed companies, estimating that their negative impacts
or “environmental externalities” total around $2.2 trillion annually.

Pavan Sukhdev, the TEEB Study Leader and also head of UNEP’s Green Economy
Initiative, said: “Through the work of TEEB and others, the economic
importance of biodiversity and ecosystems is emerging from the invisible
into the visible spectrum. It is clear that some companies in some sectors
and on some continents are hearing and acting on that message in order to
build more sustainable, 21st century businesses.”

Today’s report, entitled “TEEB for Business” and part of a suite of reports
being launched in the UN’s International Year of Biodiversity, calls for
companies to embrace concepts such as “No Net Loss”; “Ecological
Neutrality” and ultimately “Net Positive Impact” on the environment.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP
which hosts TEEB, said: “We are entering an era where the multi-trillion
dollar losses of natural and nature-based resources are starting to shape
markets and consumer concerns. How companies respond to these risks,
realities and opportunities will increasingly define their profitability;
corporate profile in the market-place and the overall development paradigm
of the coming decades on a planet of six billion, going to over nine
billion people by 2050.”

Julia Marton-Lefevre, TEEB advisory board member and Director-General of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which
coordinated the “TEEB for Business” report, urged companies attending the
1st Global Business for Biodiversity Symposium at the Excel Centre in
London on 13 July to back new and transformational policies such as those
outlined in the report.

“Together Governments and business, in both developed and developing
economies, can show leadership by establishing networks of committed
corporations across all sectors dedicated to achieving a ‘Net Positive
Impact’ on biodiversity and ecosystem services.”

The TEEB report cites the case of the multinational mining giant Rio Tinto
as one company that has committed itself to achieving “Net Positive Impact”
on biodiversity. In association with leading conservation experts the
company has developed new ways of assessing the biodiversity values of its
land holdings, and has begun to apply biodiversity compensation or “offset”
methodologies in Madagascar, Australia and North America.

Other companies with similar commitments on biodiversity include Wal-Mart
(Acres for America initiative), Coca Cola (water neutral by 2020) and BC
Hydro (no net incremental ecological impact).

In addition to minimizing and mitigating adverse impacts, business can also
generate revenue from conserving biodiversity and delivering ecosystem
services. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries all depend on healthy
ecosystems to ensure healthy profits.

The tourism sector has a major stake and role to play in conserving
biodiversity. Realizing its reliance on the biodiversity rich but fragile
coral reefs, Chumbe Island Coral Park Ltd in Tanzania has invested over
$1.2million to establish a marine park to protect the corals surrounding
Chumbe Island. The company actively supports park management as well as its
own resort facilities.

The “TEEB for Business” report, which will form part of a final TEEB
synthesis report to be launched at a meeting of the Convention on
Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, calls on
professional associations to develop new accounting and reporting tools for
business.

The measurement and valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in
business is improving. The report recommends that accounting professions,
financial reporting bodies and others should accelerate efforts to develop
common standards and metrics to enable business to assess and disclose
their biodiversity impacts and responses in annual reports.

Joshua Bishop, the “TEEB for Business” report coordinator and Chief
Economist of IUCN, said: “Better accounting of business impacts on
biodiversity – both positive and negative – is essential to spur change in
business investment and operations. Smart business leaders realise that
integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in their value chains can
generate substantial cost savings and new revenues, as well as improved
business reputation and license to operate.”

In another recent report by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, business leaders expressed their vision of a sustainable
future, which include “prices that reflect all externalities: costs and
benefits” (WBCSD Vision 2050).

Steps in this direction are already being taken, as evidenced by the growth
of markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services.  Market data compiled
by Forest Trends and the Ecosystem Marketplace showed:

* The certified agricultural products market was valued at over $40bn in
2008 and may reach up to $210bn by 2020.

* Biodiversity offsets, such as wetland mitigation banking in the United
States or “bio-banking” in Australia, are predicted to rise from $3 billion
in 2008 to $10 billion in 2020.

* Bio carbon/forest offsets including REDD are expected to rise from just
$21m in 2006 to over $10bn in 2020.

Starting today, businesses can show leadership on biodiversity and
ecosystem services (BES) by:

1. Identifying their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem
services
2. Assessing the business risks and opportunities associated with these
impacts and dependencies
3. Developing BES information systems, set targets and report results
4. Taking action to avoid, minimize and mitigate BES risks
5. Integrating BES actions with wider Corporate Social Responsibility
initiatives
6. Engaging with business peers and stakeholders to improve guidance and
policy
7. Grasping emerging BES business opportunities

The “TEEB for Business” report will be launched at the first Global
Business of Biodiversity Symposium on 13 July at the Excel Centre, London.
 http://www.businessofbiodiversity.co.uk/

———-

The “TEEB for Business” report is available at www.teebweb.org

The lead authors and editors of the “TEEB for Business” report include
staff from Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Earthmind, the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), IUCN, UNEP and
WBCSD.

The survey of CEOs and their attitudes to biodiversity loss was carried out
by Price WaterhouseCoopers.

The survey of consumer attitudes to biodiversity and business was carried
out by global market survey company IPSOS.

The TEEB project is hosted by UNEP and supported by the European
Commission; the German Federal Environment Ministry; the UK Government’s
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the UK Department for
International Development; Norway’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs; The
Netherlands’ Interministerial Program Biodiversity; and the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency.

For more information, please contact:

Georgina Langdale, Communications, TEEB, Tel: +49-1707-617-138, Email
Georgina.langdale@unep-teeb.org

Brian Thomson, Media Relations and Campaigns, IUCN, Tel: + 41-22-999-0251,
Email Brian.Thomson@iucn.org

Or Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, Tel: +254-733-632755
Email nick.nuttall@unep.org

***********************************
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
sniffenj@un.org
www.unep.org
*********************************

The Return of the Bicycle.
Analysis by Lester R. Brown*
 http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52066

WASHINGTON, Jul 6, 2010 (IPS) – The bicycle has many attractions as a form of personal transportation. It alleviates congestion, lowers air pollution, reduces obesity, increases physical fitness, does not emit climate-disrupting carbon dioxide, and is priced within the reach of the billions of people who cannot afford a car.

Bicycles increase mobility while reducing congestion and the area of land paved over. Six bicycles can typically fit into the road space used by one car. For parking, the advantage is even greater, with 20 bicycles occupying the space required to park a car.

Few methods of reducing carbon emissions are as effective as substituting a bicycle for a car on short trips. A bicycle is a marvel of engineering efficiency, one where an investment in 22 pounds of metal and rubber boosts the efficiency of individual mobility by a factor of three.

The bicycle is not only a flexible means of transportation; it is ideal in restoring a balance between caloric intake and expenditure. Regular exercise of the sort provided by cycling to work reduces cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and arthritis, and it strengthens the immune system.

World bicycle production, averaging 94 million per year from 1990 to 2002, climbed to 130 million in 2007, far outstripping automobile production of 70 million. Bicycle sales in some markets are surging as governments devise a myriad of incentives to encourage bicycle use. For example, in 2009 the Italian government began a hefty incentive programme to encourage the purchase of bicycles or electric bikes in order to improve urban air quality and reduce the number of cars on the road. The direct payments will cover up to 30 percent of the cost of the bicycle.

China, with 430 million bikes, has the world’s largest fleet, but ownership rates are higher in Europe. The Netherlands has more than one bike per person, while Denmark and Germany have just under one bike per person.

China dramatically demonstrated the capacity of the bicycle to provide mobility for low-income populations. In 1976, this country produced six million bicycles. After the reforms in 1978 that led to an open market economy and rapidly rising incomes, bicycle production started climbing, reaching nearly 90 million in 2007.

The surge to 430 million bicycle owners in China has provided the greatest increase in mobility in history. Bicycles took over rural roads and city streets. Although China’s rapidly multiplying passenger cars and the urban congestion they cause get a lot of attention, it is bicycles that provide personal mobility for hundreds of millions of Chinese.

Among the industrial-country leaders in designing bicycle-friendly transport systems are the Netherlands, where 27 percent of all trips are by bike, Denmark with 18 percent, and Germany, 10 percent. By contrast, the United States and Britain are each at 1 percent.

An excellent study by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler at Rutgers University analyzed the reasons for these wide disparities among countries. They note that “extensive cycling rights-of-way in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists.”

These countries, they point out, “make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking.… It is the coordinated implementation of this multi-faceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling.” And it is the lack of these policies, they note, that explains “the marginal status of cycling in the UK and USA”.

The Netherlands, the unquestioned leader among industrial countries in encouraging bicycle use, has incorporated a vision of the role of bicycles into a Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to creating bike lanes and trails in all its cities, the system also often gives cyclists the advantage over motorists in right-of-way and at traffic lights. Some traffic signals permit cyclists to move out before cars. By 2007, Amsterdam had become the first western industrial city where the number of trips taken by bicycle exceeded those taken by car.

Within the Netherlands, a nongovernmental group called Interface for Cycling Expertise (I-ce) has been formed to share the Dutch experience in designing a modern transport system that prominently features bicycles. It is working with groups in Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Kenya, Peru, South Africa, and Uganda to facilitate bicycle use.

Sales of electric bicycles, a relatively new genre of transport vehicles, also have taken off. E-bikes are similar to plug-in hybrid cars in that they are powered by two sources – in this case muscle and battery power – and can be plugged into the grid for recharging as needed.

In China, where this technology came into its own, sales climbed from 40,000 e-bikes in 1998 to 21 million in 2008. China had close to 100 million electric bicycles on the road that year, compared with 18 million cars. These e-bikes are now attracting attention in other Asian countries similarly plagued with air pollution and in the United States and Europe, where combined sales now exceed 300,000 per year.

In contrast to plug-in hybrid cars, electric bikes do not directly use any fossil fuel. If we can make the transition from coal-fired power plants to wind, solar, and geothermal power, then electrically powered bicycles can also operate fossil-fuel-free.

Above all, the key to realising the potential of the bicycle is to create bicycle-friendly transport systems. This means providing bicycle trails and designated street lanes for bicycles, designed to serve both commuters and people biking for recreation, and making bike parking facilities and showers available at workplaces. This simple bicycle is a winner in the Plan B economy.

—————

*Lester R. Brown is founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute. This article is excerpted from Chapter 6, “Designing Cities for People” in Brown’s ‘Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilisation’ (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), available on-line at  www.earthpolicy.org

from raffaella@ecoharmony.com to Energy-l <energy-l@lists.iisd.ca> date Fri, Jul 9, 2010 subject [LondonRIG] Event 29 July 2010: Christian Aid’s Climate Change & Adaptation Work.

)

Dear all,

For those of you in London or passing by, LondonRIG will be having another informal presentation and discussion on:

“Christian Aid’s Climate Change & Adaptation Work with Links to Emerging Renewable Energy Issues” by Richard Ewbank, Climate Change Programme Coordinator at Christian Aid.

When: Thursday 29th of July 2010 at 18:30

Where: The Carpenters Arms, 12 Seymour Place, Marylebone, London

Note: The event is open to all! However due to the informal nature and short duration of the meet-up, we do not encourage or support attendance from overseas – unless you are passing by London for other reasons.

RSVP: thalia@ecoharmony.com (please respond with a YES or MAYBE if planning to come)

Topic:
‘Christian Aid has gained a high profile as a campaigning agency working on climate change but Richard will explain how their main programme work involves the rather more practical side of supporting poor communities to cope with the increasing levels of climate change that they are experiencing. This means increasing the resilience of their livelihoods, enhancing the ability of their communities to identify and plan for the likely future climate threats they may face and diversifying their sources of income.

He will describe how an important part of this process is to detect the level of climate change that has occurred and is likely in the future and to attribute livelihood risks correctly to climate or other risk factors.

With 44% of people in India and over 70% in Africa not connected to grid sources of electricity, renewable energy is a key resource in this adaptation process. ’

Please find flyer attached. Feel free to post this on your own newsletters or websites and to forward this to others who may be interested to attend.

Directions and other information about the event and the London Regional Interest Group, are available on the HEDON website:

http://www.hedon.info/LondonRIG:29Jul2010

We look forward to seeing you there.
Best regards,
Thalia & Raffaella

–

Thalia KONARIS
Eco Ltd: www.ecoharmony.com
PO Box 900, London, Bromley, BR1 9FF, UK
Tel +44-20 30 120 130
Fax  +44-20 30 120 140
email thalia@ecoharmony.com

It happened last night, June 29, 2010, and the venue was the delightful Museum of American Finance – right there at 48 Wall Street, and our host was the delightful 1988 Founder, and Chairman Emeritus, John E. Herzog.

The Spring Issue of Financial History, the Museum’s Magazine is very up-to-date. It has on the cover Charles Ponzi and articles like “why We Love Scandals,” “Robbing Peter to Pay Paul,” “James Bowie’s Louisiana Purchase Fraud,” and Monclova Speculations,” “How to Make a Dead Ma” on the life insurance business.

The first thing I learned at the Museum was that Warren Buffet, now billionaire investor of the  was the only student at the Columbia University School of Business, who ever got an A+ from his Professor Benjamin Graham who in the early 1930s, taught his students Value Investing. Today’s Ben Graham Center for Value Investment at the Richard Ivey School of Business, in London, Western Ontario, Canada,  teaches: “First, we think of stocks in the same way that a business person would think of a business. Second, we do not follow but instead try to take advantage of the manic depressive Mr. Market. Third, we always look for a margin of safety.” Did you note – A MARGIN OF SAFETY!” Do you need to study the Manic Depressive side of Washington?

Anyway, Warren Buffet went on to sell pinball machines in bars, and with his first $1,000 he earned he bought land which he rented to farmers. The rest is history, and ask Berkshire Hathaway investors about safe investing.

I learned much more in this excellent museum and recommend it to our readers. I even learned that in the Napoleon – Thomas Jefferson Louisiana deal – the Louisiana purchase that doubled the size of the US for $15 million in US Treasuries subscribed by two European banks, the US acquired the land at 3 cents/acre.

But, it was not the museum and the catered treats we got at the end that brought me there: it was a Sierra Club e-mail about a panel: “EVERYBODY WINS: INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY.”

The  moderator was Michael Richter – partner with Environmental Capital Partners (ECP), a private equity firm affiliated with New York Private Bank & Trust that provides long-term capital and management support to leading middle-market companies in the environmental industry. (Before doing that, and before business school,  he was three time National Hockey League All-Star.)

His panel included:

Rebecca Craft, Director of Energy Efficiency Programs at Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. A regulated utility that whatever happens – must make a profit.

Christopher J. Lord, Senior Vice President of Business Development at Hannon Armstrong Capital. They specialized in the last 30 years in investment in new technologies.

Carl Pope, Chairman of the Sierra Club, America’s largest grassroots environmental organization and as the paper proudly states - “The Aspen Institute, after surveying every member of Congress and key federal officials, named the Sierra Club as the most influential organization in Washington DC.” I was appalled reading this self description which in my eyes looked rather like the reason of disqualification from claiming representation on environmentalism’s board.

————–

After the statements by the panelists, with major participation of Con Edison that turned it all into a rather energy for the home sort of an event, there were many intelligent questions from the audience, and I am sorry to say that again I found it quite disquieting as I realized that with this sort of discussion we will really not get out of the hole we find that we dug ourselves with the  help of exactly this sort of thinking – how to make a buck by skirting the real issues and trying somehow to improve at the margin.

I did not raise any question – rather slumbered through it all – then went over to a chat with Carl Pope.

Now this is a work in progress and I will get back to it – but want to post mow because of another event I picked up and want our readers that can make it – go over if they can.

Today, Wednesday, June 30, 2010,  12:30 – 01:30, at the Museum – 48 Wall Street, New York NY, 10005
tel: 1-212-908-4110

There will be a  discussion on past, present, and future of energy trading.

Participants are: Howard Hopkins, Director Energy Products CME Group.

and Paul Huges. Senior Analyst within Business Development for CME Group.

They will provide an overview of pre-electronic energy trading, speak about the current status of the markets, and discuss the globalization of futures markets and CME Group.

—————

We just received our electricity bill and it had an attachment for the sake of “ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE FOR CON ED”
It gave “The Fuel Souces and Air Emissions to Generate Your Electricity for the year 2006.” Is it not amazing? July 2010 we get information for 2006 – and they are partners of a panel with Sierra Club Chief?

So how did they produce our electricity in 2006?

Gas          – 50%

Nuclear   – 35%

Coal         -    8%

Hydro     -     3%

Oil           -     2%

Biomass, Solar, Solid Waste, Wind – each one of them says Less then 1% – and if we total them all up – we find that their total is 2% at best.

Now, do not think that the Con Edison list was according to resources used as I did it. It was rather by alphabet – so it is less obvious to the eye.

A SWISS-led Project. They also came up with the Swatchmobil that turned into best-selling SMART car.

Why does the US not do this sort of work. Think about the availability of the Huntsville, Alabama facilities, could they figure out work on Solar Flight projects?

————————-

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

From The Brazilian American Chamber of Commerce Inc.

www.BrazilCham.com

Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca, Ph.D.
Economic Advisor to Ms. Marian Silva’s (Green Party. of Brazil) Presidential Campaign.

Thursday, July 22, 2010
4:00 – 4:30 PM    Registration and Networking
4:30 – 6:00 PM  Presentation and Question & Answer

Crowell & Moring LLP
590 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,  New York City

from: Bel Camargo <belcamargo@gmail.com> date: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 subject: New climate finance policy brief by ODI and the Heinrich Boell Foundation

New climate finance policy brief by ODI and the Heinrich Boell Foundation: Climate finance additionality: emerging definitions and their implications.

This is the second paper in a series of policy briefs which provides independent commentary on current themes associated with the international debate on climate finance. The papers are prepared by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Heinrich Boell Foundation and posted on the climate funds update website (www.climatefundsupdate.org).

The website has just updated information on several of its funds and will conduct a systematic update of all funds by end of July. The website will also soon expand to include new searchable graphs and databases as well as new information on Fast Start Finance.

Past US Independence Day, for Bastille Day – July 14, 2010 – we note the following US effort:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE SELECTS ROCHESTER AS A SITE FOR A FORUM DISCUSSION ABOUT PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S NATIONAL EXPORT INITIATIVE

- NEI Aims to Double the Number of Exports by 2012 -

ROCHESTER, N.Y. – (July 2, 2010) — Rochester is the only Upstate New York City the U.S. Department of State has selected as the location for a forum discussion about President Barack Obama’s National Export Initiative (NEI). NEI aims to double the United States’ number of exports by 2012 and create 2 million jobs nationwide, approximately the same number of jobs lost by the manufacturing sector during the economic downturn.

“The Department of State chose Rochester because the Greater Rochester Region is the largest exporting metro region in Upstate New York, and it is one of the top 5 exporting regions per capita in the United States,” said International Business Council (IBC) of Greater Rochester, NY Executive Director Laurie DeRoller. “This town hall style meeting will provide local businesses with valuable information they need to grow and create jobs.”

Thomas Engle, director of the Office of Monetary Affairs Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs for the U.S. Department of State, will speak at the event, which takes place Wednesday, July 14 from 11 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. at the Gleason Works Auditorium, located at 1000 University Avenue in Rochester.

The IBC is hosting the NEI Forum Discussion along with the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) Export Assistant and the Upstate NY District Export Council (DEC). There is no cost for IBC and DEC members, and Greater Rochester Enterprise (GRE) board members and investors. There is a $20 cost for all other attendees. To register for the event, contact Heidi Schmitt at Heidi@Rochesterbiz.com or register at http://www.regonline.com/register/checkin.aspx?EventId=875859.

ABOUT IBC:

The International Business Council of Greater Rochester, NY (IBC) is a collaborative association established to promote and expand international opportunities by developing and
enhancing the expertise of its members. An affiliate of GRE, IBC is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to bringing the trade community programs, assistance, and opportunities to enhance international trade practices.

ABOUT GRE:

Located in the heart of New York’s technology corridor, Greater Rochester Enterprise (GRE) is a public-private partnership established to professionally market the Rochester metropolitan region as a competitive, high-profile place for business location and growth. Its efforts support business attraction and expansion, as well as entrepreneurship and innovation.  GRE collaborates with businesses, universities, not-for-profit organizations and government leaders to ensure a unified approach to regional economic development.  For more information, please go to www.RochesterBiz.com.
========================================

But not everything is smooth with the NEI – there is also criticism. We hope that the Rochester location will provide for a discussion of not only the job creation aspect of this initiative – but also of the quality of the jobs as sustainability can be achieved only if these are high quality new tech jobs – otherwise the effort will rather end up promoting jobs overseas at high subsidy expense. We expect a lively discussion in Rochester.

——————————————-

Obama Announces Export Council, Reports On Export Progress.

In his State of the Union speech President Obama announced the National Export Initiative, a campaign to double US exports within 5 years. Today he gave a progress report and announced the members of his Export Council, with a number of CEOs (and one labor leader) including Alan Mulally of the Ford Motor Company, Scott Davis of U.P.S., Glenn Tilton, United Airlines Chairman and CEO and Robert A. Iger of the Walt Disney Company.

The White House says that with a 17% increase in exports in the first 4 months of the year we are on track to double exports within 5 years.

Announcing the Export Council, Obama said, “We’ve got to compete for those customers. We mean to compete for those jobs and compete to win.”

For example, they are setting up “business assistance centers” abroad to help American companies get business, and increasing credit through the Export/Import bank.. They are fighting barriers that other countries have set up to keep out American products, so far increasing our export of things like pork by $1 billion. “When we give other countries the privilege of free and fair access we expect it in return.”

—————–

Leo Hindery, Chairman of the US Economy/Smart Globalization Initiative at the New America Foundation, writes at Huffington Post,

There are three problems with this pledge.

First, doubling U.S. exports would create just 10 percent of the 22 million new jobs we need, and yet, combined with multiple new free trade agreements (FTAs), it seems to be the only specific jobs policy coming from the White House.

Second, this strategy wrongly overshadows the more critical imperative of ‘import substitution’.

Third, the first three FTAs being proposed — with South Korea, Panama and Colombia — are very poorly negotiated and will cause even more American jobs to be lost overseas.

. . . And as the economist Clyde Prestowitz has determined, with plenty of supporting evidence, “the more free trade agreements the U.S. has entered into, the bigger America’s trade imbalances have become and the less our allies have seemed to like or pay attention to us”.

Hindery explains how past “free trade” agreement have failed American workers,

When NAFTA was proposed in 1993, five promises were made about the positive effects that were certain to come to the U.S., not one of which has been kept. The two ‘biggies,’ of course, were that (1) “NAFTA will generate a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of around $100 billion between the years 2000 and 2010″ — in fact, our trade deficit with Mexico for these ten years will be around $527 billion; and (2) “NAFTA will create many new high-wage jobs in the United States” — instead, at least two million American workers have already lost their jobs.

. . . But even more imbalanced has been China’s entry into the WTO, which occurred a decade ago. Back then, President Clinton promised that this would be “a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences” — instead, our overall trade deficit with China has increased 173 percent since 2000, China is now responsible for around 75 percent of our overall annual trade deficit in manufactured goods, and we’ve lost more than one-third of our manufacturing jobs, mostly to China (and Mexico).

But Hindery’s beef is not that Obama is pushing Bush-negotiated agreements with Korea, Columbia and Panama, it is that this appears to be the only job-creation plan that Obama is offering.

Hindery offers a number of steps to improve the situation, including scrapping Bush-negotiated trade agreements and negotiating fair and balanced agreements that lift us and our partners instead of giving big corporations a hammer to use to lower American wages and eliminate American jobs.

Increasing exports is important. Fighting trade barriers is important. This will help the economy recover. Bravo to the President for this.

Now, how about recognizing that there is a jobs emergency and pushing hard on the Congress to set up some direct government job-creation programs?

—–   —–    —–

We want to add here again – that job creation is important but one must remember to look under the rug and make sure that these are jobs in the technologies of the future. In the past the US exported wind mill technology under the otherwise corrupt ENRON Corporation – but with ENRON we also lost the wind – and that is something that needs correction – so our point is that the US needs exports that are for the long term – exports of technologies for the future.

A blog about all things green, from conservation to Capitol Hill.

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/06/report-card-on-renewables-europes-getting-as/#ixzz0t4OJ8DiL

	from:	Energy and Capital <eac-eletter@angelnexus.com>
subject:		I Got the Asian Itch.

I’ve got the Asian itch, and it won’t be hard to see why…

I’ve got this itch because the region’s economies continue to grow while economic tremors continue to rock Europe and the United States.

I’ve got this itch because Asia’s investment in cleantech continues to grow while it shrinks in other areas:

.

I’ve got this itch because Asian governments turned to cleantech as the obvious choice for financial stimulus — with China, South Korea, and Japan allocating $20 billion more to the sector than the United States:

.

I’ve got this itch because China out-invested us 2:1 last year in new energy technologies:

.

Which makes their long-term cleantech investment curve look like this:

.

While ours looks like this:

Scratching the itch…

With a financial investment edge like that, you can bet Asia’s — particularly China’s — dedication is translating to wins in the public markets as well.

Five years ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find more than one or two Chinese companies on global top ten lists…

Now, they’ve taken three of the top 10 global wind spots and six in the solar race:

And not only are they whooping us in investment and production capacity; European and U.S. companies look silly next to Chinese stars:

That’s why 19 of the last 60 or so winners I’ve closed in the Alternative Energy Speculator have been China-based.

But my itch isn’t satisfied yet…

You see, only Asia’s dominance of the solar market has been thoroughly established in U.S. markets, where Chinese ADRs are common.

And while their dominance of wind and smart grid industries is definitely being plotted and executed, there’s been no way to play it in domestic markets — until now.

Sinovel (the #3 company in the table above) has announced ambitions to be the world wind leader in the next five years. I’m guessing this company, along with a few other Chinese entrants, will go the initial public offering route.

And if you think there’s work to be done on our grid, you should have a look at Asia where, in some places, there is no grid at all.

In fact it’s being built from scratch.

Just last week, Bloomberg broke news that “smart grid technology will be one of the key industries for research and development support in China’s upcoming 12th Five Year development plan, due to be enacted at the beginning of 2011.”

China’s largest grid operator, the State Grid Corp., has already said it will invest $37 billion this year alone to build a nationwide smart grid network.

So to recap…

China has leveraged its massive economy to become world leaders in solar and wind technology, outinvesting other nations by far.

Now they’re turning to the smart grid, which we’ll be necessary if they’re ever to harness that solar and wind potential effectively.

And make no mistake — only the Chinese survive in China. They take care of and nurture their own.

Like the Chinese solar companies now sharply outperforming their foreign competitors, I’ve found the one company about to become a global smart grid and electric car juggernaut.

As you can tell from all the data above, China is betting on a clean energy future.

And it’s winning.

While the U.S. continues to lag behind, you can satisfy your Asian itch by following China’s lead.

Call it like you see it.
Nick

P.S. China’s thirst for energy is incomparable. And it’s not just clean energy they’re after… My friend Christian DeHaemer is fresh off a trip to Mongolia, where he cozied up with a tiny company sitting on $51 billion worth of crude. And China wants it — bad.

He’s going to release a full report on the company and its massive find tomorrow. But because you’re a loyal reader of Energy & Capital, I figured I’d give you early access to it today.

———————–

China’s Next Cleantech Takeover: World’s Largest Automaker!

It was just a tiny, $10 battery company…

But right now, as part of China’s rapid cleantech mission, this little gem is rapidly on the verge of becoming the world’s largest automaker!

Click here for your free report.

Rio+20 Summit Preview Article: Another Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012: Leading or Misleading the World through a Green Economy? by Uchita de Zoysa

To: SustainabiliTank

Dear Sir/Madam,

Another Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012: Leading or Misleading the World through a Green Economy?

I am herewith sending you an article themed “Another Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012: Leading or Misleading the World through a Green Economy?”. This is one of the first international reviews of the planned Rio+20 Summit or the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) to be held in 2012.

The summit is planned as the 20^th Anniversary of the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro held in 1992. The 1^st Preparatory Committee meeting of the summit was held in last May, which I participated, was arranged in a hurry without much notification to governments across the world. Specially the Southern developing countries are still  not aware of this critical process that will determine their futures. The process is very weak and the agenda dominated by the so called ‘Green Economy’ has already created doubt over the objectives and the successful outcome of the summit.

This article is written with firsthand experience and quoting the different people who participated in meetings I was involved in organizing at the 1^st PrepCom for UNCSD in New York from 17-19^th May 2010.

As a participant at the 1992 1^st Rio Earth Summit and now involved in the Rio+20, I feel its my duty to early inform readers of the importance of this summit.

I  would greatly appreciate if your paper would publish this article at the earliest convenience to create early awareness amongst our government, stakeholders and citizens.

I thank you in advance for your kind support.

Sincerely,

Uchita de Zoysa

Chairman – Global Sustainability Solutions (GLOSS)

—————————-

Managing Director – D&D Strategic Solutions (D&D)

Executive Director – Centre for Environment & Development (CED)

Convenor – Climate Sustainability PLATFORM

253/10, Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka

tel/fax: +94 11 2768459 mobile: +94 777 372206

e-mail: uchita@sltnet.lk / info@glossolutions.com /ced@sltnet.lk /betterworld@sltnet.lk

skype: betterworldasia         skype: uchita.de.zoysa

web: www.glossolutions.com

blog: http://betterworldasia.blogspot.com/

blog: http://ddstrategicsolutions.wordpress.com/

blog: http://centreforenvironmentdevelopment.blogspot.com/

blog: http://www.climatesustainabilityplatform.blogspot.com/

blog: http://climatesustainability.blogspot.com/

—————————-

ANOTHER EARTH SUMMIT IN 2012 (by Uchita de Zoysa).doc 64K   View Download =======================================

from:      

What is 350?

What does the number 350 mean?

350 is the most important number in the world—it’s what scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Two years ago, after leading climatologists observed rapid ice melt in the Arctic and other frightening signs of climate change, they issued a series of studies showing that the planet faced both human and natural disaster if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remained above 350 parts per million.

Everyone from Al Gore to the U.N.’s top climate scientist has now embraced this goal as necessary for stabilizing the planet and preventing complete disaster. Now the trick is getting our leaders to pay attention and craft policies that will put the world on track to get to 350.

Is 350 scientifically possible?

Right now, mostly because we’ve burned so much fossil fuel, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 390 ppm—that’s way too high, and it’s why ice is melting, drought is spreading, forests are dying. To bring that number down, the first task is to stop putting more carbon into the atmosphere. That means a very fast transition to sun and wind and other renewable forms of power. If we can stop pouring more carbon into the atmosphere, then forests and oceans will slowly suck some of it out of the air and return us to safe levels.

Is 350 politically possible?

It’s very hard. It means switching off fossil fuel much more quickly than governments and corporations have been planning. But we can change that–if we mobilize the world to swift and bold climate action, and shift the world to a clean energy future.

What was the day of action in 2009?

On October 24, the International Day of Climate Action covered almost every country on earth, the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history.

There were be big rallies in big cities, and incredible creative actions across the globe: mountain climbers on our highest peaks with banners, underwater demonstrations in island nations threatened by sea level rise, churches and mosques and synagogues and ashrams engaged in symbolic action, star athletes organizing mass bike rides–and hundreds upon hundreds of community events to raise awareness of the need for urgent action.

Every event highlighted the number 350–and people gathered at some point for a big group photo depicting that all important message. At 350.org, we assembled all the photos for a gigantic, global, visual petition.

The thousands of events on October 24 will drive 350 and all that it represents into the human imagination, and helped shift the political climate around climate change. Countries on the front lines of climate change are no longer willing to settle for weak efforts and half-measures. All the actions on October 24 will help our leaders realize we need a real solution that pays attention to the science.

How did this make a difference?

October 24 has finally put the focus where it needs to be: on the science and the citizens, not the special interests and the backroom deals.

People have sent in thousands of images of citizens gathering at important places around the world—from the melting peaks of Mt. Everest to the sinking beaches of the Maldives—displaying the number 350 in a creative way. 350.org staff will display these photos on the big screens in Times Square and projecting them at the UN headquarters. Those photos are appearing in newspapers large and small—the same newspapers that politicians all over the world use as a barometer of public opinion. We’re also delivering copies of the images—and the stories that go with them—to national delegates, environment ministers, and heads of state the world over.

Grassroots global action will be useful to put pressure on world leaders. Together we can remind our leaders that they need to take physical reality—and not political expediency—into account when they’re making decisions about our collective future. 350 is a clear and specific goal (unlike vague demands to “stop global warming”) that helps move politics n the direction science and justice demand. At 350.org, we make sure your voice is heard, and this debate is re-framed in time to make a difference.

350.org is an international grassroots campaign that aims to mobilize a global climate movement united by a common call to action. By spreading an understanding of the science and a shared vision for a fair policy, we will ensure that the world creates bold and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.

What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in “parts per million” (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM-a “people powered movement” that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.

——————-

Dear World,

It’s been a tough year: in North America, oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico; in Asia some of the highest temperatures ever recorded; in the Arctic, the fastest melting of sea ice ever seen; in Latin America, record rainfalls washing away whole mountainsides.

So we’re having a party.

Circle 10/10/10 on your calendar. That’s the date. The place is wherever you live. And the point is to do something that will help deal with global warming in your city or community. We’re calling it a Global Work Party.
 http://www.350.org/

Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Archives, Arctic Ice, Droughts, Future Events, Futurism, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Nairobi, Oceans, Paris, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Storms

Discuss this article

 http://www.modul.ac.at/pgm/msc?gclid=CLP…

Master of Science in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy

Study in a Unique Multidisciplinary Environment

The Master of Science (MSc) degree programs* at MODUL University Vienna offer a unique multidisciplinary approach, working with research teams from three different departments: public governance and management, tourism and hospitality management and new media technology. Our research and teaching staff actively participate in international scholarly and professional networks and are at the forefront of their field, which enables us to bring you right to the heart of scientific practice.

Are you interested in studying the principles of sustainable development and understanding the impact of environmental policies on local communities and international businesses or the impact of economic development policies on environmental quality? Do you want to investigate what policies can be implemented to reduce environmental impacts in the tourism production chain? Do you want to understand to what extent the success of local environmental policy depends on civic participation in policy making? The future world needs people with comprehensive knowledge of both environmental and development issues to provide leadership for our local and global communities.
As a MU Vienna Master of Science graduate, you will be able to address the globalization and sustainability challenges of this millennium.

As a graduate of the MSc in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy you will be qualified for positions as consultants, scientists, policy advisors, program coordinators and environmental marketing specialists at research institutes, in government, in globally presented companies or at NGOs all over the world. In addition, the MSc degree prepares students for a subsequent PhD program. For further information, see the folder for the MSc programs.

Strenghts of the Study Program

• Studying in a multi-disciplinary research environment with an emphasis on critical thinking and the application of specialist knowledge to the challenges of the 21st century
• Understanding the emergent trends and key management issues by empowering the analytical skills of students
• The open atmosphere at MU guarantees the best support for writing the master thesis

Facts & Figures

Admission Criteria

• Admission to this master program is granted to persons who have completed at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s or diploma degree, and ideally can demonstrate their research skills and their basic knowledge of the natural and/or social sciences.
• A suitable preparation for the MSc in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy might include courses from among physics, geology, technical sciences, biology, geography, earth sciences, planning, sociology, policy sciences, law, management, or economics. Selection will be based upon transcripts of courses and grades taken at previous universities and other educational organizations.
• All candidates whose native language is not English and who have not graduated from an undergraduate program conducted in English are required to provide proof of proficiency in the English language by showing that they have passed one of the tests below or by satisfying the Admissions Committee in a form deemed appropriate by the Committee:
  - TOEFL (570 PBT or 230 CBT or 88 IBT) or
  - IELTS 5.5 (no sub-score under 5.0)
• MODUL University Vienna reserves the right to request that individual applicants submit TOEFL or IELTS scores, even if they have attended a secondary school conducted in English, to ensure their English skills meet the expected academic level.
• CV and motivation letter

Credit transfer applications must be submitted together with the admissions documents.

The Admission Committee will make decision on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for admission. The admission committee decides on:

• Type of acceptance (full acceptance / conditional acceptance)
• If credits are transferred to the program
• Merit scholarships
• Additional courses that need to be taken by candidates who do not fulfill all requirements for entering the program

For further information on the admissions process, please contact admissions@modul.ac.at.

* Degree programs are subject to accreditation by the Austrian Accreditation Council.

Attachment
Application Form MSc Programs.pdf
Facts_MSc_Programs.pdf ——————————————————— ———————————————————- Study Abroad Cooperations MODUL University Vienna’s Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management maintains exchange agreements with many institutions. For general information on the exchange programs please contact the International Officer at the Student Service Center.  http://www.modul.ac.at/study_abroad among the list of such institutions is also included the - City University of New York, USA The City University of New York (CUNY) is the largest urban public university in the USA and also offers a program in Hospitality Management. An exchange program is under development. ——————————————————- Contact Admission Services For information for prospective students, please contact: Admission Services Address: Am Kahlenberg 1 1190 Wien, Austria Tel.: +43 1 320 3555-202 Fax: +43 1 320 3555-902 E-Mail: admissions@modul.ac.at University Communication Office For information on press and media material as well as for journalistic inquiries, please contact: University Communication Office Address: Am Kahlenberg 1 1190 Wien, Austria Tel.: +43 1 320 3555-104 Fax: +43 1 320 3555-902 E-Mail: andreas.eder@modul.ac.at ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

White House Energy Session Changes No Minds.

By JOHN M. BRODER, The New York Times.
June 29, 2010

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, left, and John Kerry on Tuesday after a White House meeting on proposed energy legislation.

A New York Times blog about energy and the environment. Go to Blog

———————-

Democrats continued to insist on putting some sort of price on greenhouse gas emissions; Republicans continued to insist that to do so would be to impose a tax that would smother the economy.

“We have to take a national energy tax off the table,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

“There is no energy tax,” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, sponsor of a bill that would significantly raise the cost of greenhouse gas pollution.

This battle has divided the Senate for a year and must be somehow resolved in the coming weeks if the Senate is to produce a comprehensive energy bill that also addresses the gases contributing to climate change.

It does not appear that Tuesday’s meeting moved either side, although Mr. Kerry said Tuesday that he was willing to scale back the bill he and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, proposed this spring to cut energy use and reduce global warming pollution.

Mr. Kerry suggested starting with electric utilities only, a plan tentatively embraced Tuesday by Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine.

Mr. Obama summoned the 23 senators, of both parties, to the White House to try to find some way out of the impasse. He repeated his call for putting a price on climate-altering pollution through a cap-and-trade system or some other sort of emissions tax, but acknowledged the adamant opposition to the idea from most Republicans as well as some Democrats.

“Not all of the senators agreed with this approach,” noted an account of the meeting provided by the White House, “and the president welcomed other approaches and ideas that would take real steps to reduce our dependence on oil, create jobs, strengthen our national security and reduce the pollution in our atmosphere.”

———————

Among the ideas circulating in Washington are:

a so-called energy-only bill that would encourage conservation and greater efficiency in buildings and vehicles;

more government incentives for alternative fuels;

a plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants while delaying regulation of other major sources of pollution for years;

and a measure to rapidly build nuclear power plants and electrify the American vehicle fleet.

Mr. Obama neither offered specific ideas of his own nor endorsed any of these proposals, but said all parties shared an urgency about enacting some form of energy legislation this year, the White House account said.

Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said Mr. Obama was attentive but noncommittal.

“He’s not saying, ‘Here’s what I want you to do,’ ” Mr. Brown said. “He probably needs to say that and push one approach. He hasn’t done that yet.”

——————–

Mr. Brown said no one offered support for expanded offshore drilling as a way to reduce dependence on imported oil. Mr. Obama proposed just such a plan three weeks before the BP Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April, killing 11 workers and sending an uncapped geyser of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

——————-

As Mr. Obama tried to nudge the Senate forward on a comprehensive energy package, both chambers were moving swiftly on measures to address the oil leak in the gulf and the industry and regulatory practices that contributed to it.

House and Senate committees will begin debate on Wednesday on bills that will change the way offshore drillers operate and the government oversees them.

There are several proposals to lift the current $75 million limit on liability for drilling accidents; the strongest, by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, would eliminate the cap entirely.

There are bills before both chambers to revamp the Interior Department agency that regulates drilling on public lands and waters. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has already proposed splitting the agency formerly known as the Minerals Management Service into three separate offices and renaming the minerals service the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Two Congressional panels are studying alternative overhaul plans.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will take up a bill called the Blowout Prevention Act that will require oil companies digging high-risk wells in deep water to use more sophisticated emergency equipment with backup systems to ensure they work in the case of a blowout. The bill also sets strict new rules for how wells are designed, cemented and encased and requires that a relief well be started within 15 days of an accident.

There is broad support in both parties for new regulations on offshore operations, for measures to aid the Gulf Coast and for some form of energy legislation that tries to reduce dependence on imported oil. But consensus ends there.

Mr. Lieberman said he believed that he and other proponents of a strong energy bill could win some Republican support, though he said he had not yet found the formula for gaining those votes.

“I’m not naïve about the difficulty of doing this in an election year,” he said.
 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/scienc…

Climate Change’s Unlikely Crusader – T. Boone Pickens.

 http://www.globalwhisperer.com/2010/06/c…

T. Boone Pickens – Oil Baron, Corporate Takeover Specialist, and… wind power advocate?

Oil Baron, Natural Gas Advocate and Corporate Raider T. Boone Pickens, is also the 117th richest person in America. His corporate acquisitions and takeovers have placed him into many industries, mostly relating to energy. A takeover of Gulf Oil, placed him on the cover of time magazine in March of 1985.

He was a huge financial supporter of President George W. Bush, as well as the Republican Party. He contributed to the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which ran an advertising campaign against Bush’s rival, John Kerry. He supported Rudy Giuliani’s presidential committee.

Local farmer’s would be paid to place turbines on their land.

Then in 2008, a new side of T. Boone revealed itself. He announced that his company, Mesa Power had filed documents with the state of Texas announcing he would be adding 4 gigawatts of electricity to the state grid. He planned to buy 2,700 wind turbines placing them on up to 200,000 acres.

“We are now meeting with Panhandle landowners and negotiating wind lease and easement agreements,” said Pickens. “We are excited at how quickly the pieces are falling into place.”

T. Boone explained that the wind corridor that runs up through Texas and the U.S. should absolutely be utilize to provide a good chunk of the United States Power. The project would be the largest wind farm in the world.

He didn’t wait long to take action. In January of 2008 T. Boone estimated that the cost of the turbines would be in the $200-$300 million range. The first order of 6667 turbines was placed with General Electric in May of 2008. In July, the Texas Public Utilities Commission approved funding of $4.98 billion in electric transmission lines to connect the wind farms to the electric grid.

Then, with the credit crunch, the project began suffering setbacks.

“When we were looking at the project, we felt like we could do it with 30 percent equity and 70 percent debt,” The New York Times quoted Pickens saying on Wednesday. “The 70 percent debt is where we’re having a little slowdown.” “The 70 percent debt is where we’re having a little slowdown.”

“To put it plainly, T. Boone is out to save America,” – Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club.

T. Boone insists this is only a setback, the Texas grid lines need to be laid, but the state has committed to the project.

The land the wind turbines will be located on also benefits local farmers.

The farmers who own the land could makes $500 a month for each wind turbine on his property. T. Boone estimates the entire project could cost as much as 10 billion. To compare, costs of this year’s Gulf Oil spill areapproaching 22 billion (Source).

An unlikely partnership?

T. Boone has since released his own energy plan, called Pickens Plan, which called for huge investments in Solar, Wind and Natural Gas. Then in May of 2010, T. Boone paired up with his previous rival, John Kerry. They worked together to incorporate many of the ideas of Picken’s Plan into Kerry’s climate legislation bill, which is expected to hit the floor this year.

T. Boone insists that if Kerry’s bill fails, the Picken’s Plan ideas will be moved into a different energy bill that can make through Congress. As it stands now, no republicans have stepped up to support the bill. Kerry hopes with T. Boone’s advocacy, it will gain some bi-partisan support.

“To put it plainly, T. Boone is out to save America,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, after meeting with Pickens in 2008.

 http://planetark.org/wen/58569

Analysis: Silicon Valley All Aglow On Green Lighting.

by: Poornima Gupt
Date: 28-Jun-10, reporting from the Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley has seen the light, and it’s LED. {it is not just for the military anymore.}

The incandescent light bulb has had the global lighting market in its grip for more than 130 years, building into a more than $100 billion industry. But green concerns about efficiency spell an end to the era, and the U.S. technology capital sees light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, as the new king.

“Lighting is going to completely change over the course of this decade,” said Alan Salzman, chief executive of Silicon Valley-based venture fund VantagePoint Venture Partners.

His firm has $4.5 billion in committed capital in startups across different sectors, but lighting is an area he is very bullish on.

“The largest sector in terms of companies in our portfolio is lighting,” Salzman said.

While many love the look of the light cast by incandescent bulbs, none like the high energy bills. Nations around the world, including the United States, are phasing in efficiency standards that will eliminate the incandescents if no major energy improvements happen.

Investors are betting on other technologies taking hold.

Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs so far have been the only real alternative to conventional bulbs but they contain mercury and many don’t like the quality of the light.

LED lights, on the other hand, contain no mercury, have a long life and are very energy efficient.

LEDs, made of diodes or chips, have come a long way since the first practical LED was a developed in 1962. Its sole color was red. Now developers produce light colors across the spectrum.

They consume only about 20 percent of the energy used by incandescent bulbs. With about 20 percent of the world’s electricity used for lighting, switching to LEDs would generate significant energy savings and cut greenhouse gas emissions while nations debate how to price carbon dioxide pollution.

COST CHALLENGE

There is one major hurdle for mass adoption of LEDs — they cost too much. Experts say that for the market to take off, good quality LED lights need to available under $10. Current bulbs cost many times that.

Investors are betting heavily the cost will fall quickly as LED start-ups achieve scale and the technology advances.

“The market really started shifting in the last 12 months,” said Warner Philips, co-founder of LED start-up Lemnis Lighting and great grandson of the founder of Dutch electronics giant Philips Electronics.

Lemnis introduced its first LED bulb, called Pharox, that can go into a standard light socket about four years ago. The latest version can last around 25 years, based on four hours of daily operation, but it costs $25.

The price has halved in a short time. Lemnis had been selling LED bulbs around $50 only about six months ago and Philips expects the price to fall below the crucial $10 level soon.

“That will be probably be in the first half of next year,” he said.

BULLISH GROWTH PROJECTIONS

LEDs by 2020 will account for nearly half of the $4.4 billion U.S. market for lamps in the commercial, industrial and outdoor stationary sectors, predicted Pike Research, which tracks the market.

Even at the current high price, some commercial establishments and retailers are switching.

Late last year, retail giant Wal-Mart said it would install LEDs in 650 of its stores and picked Cree Inc, one of the few public companies in this space, to supply the lights.

Other companies switching to LEDs include coffee retailer Starbucks Corp, Red Robin restaurants and Yum! Brands Inc.

Cree’s shares hit an all-time high of $83.38 this April, rising almost 49 percent from the start of the year, partly due to bullish expectations on the LED market. The global economic slowdown has ratcheted back expectations, though, and sent shares down toward $65.

In the first quarter of 2010, venture capitalists invested $100 million in 14 LED lighting companies, up from $14 million in the same quarter a year ago, according to Cleantech Group.

California’s Bridgelux, which makes high-power LED chips specifically for the lighting industry, is in the process of opening a Silicon Valley plant and investors are eager to join in.

“We had a lot of people pounding on our doors,” said Chief Executive Bill Watkins.

• • David King
  • The Observer, Sunday 13 June 2010

How much should we worry about running out of oil? Of late, there have been disparate predictions for our oil reserves, with some claiming that oil will last us for decades. In fact, the question is not so much: “When will there be no more oil left for us to take?” but, rather: “When will demand outstrip production?” And that could happen sooner than most people realise. This is an issue that governments around the world, including our own, are ignoring despite the potential risk to our economies.

Conventional oil production has a limited capacity. Most additional demand must be met by unconventional sources, which are abundant. But the capacity for production depends on the effective management of environmental, social and technical challenges that unconventional sources pose. The current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a clear indicator of how these boundaries are being pushed.

The most significant concern is transport; while there are many other ways to provide heat, light and electricity, liquid transportation fuels would be hard to come by if oil supply dried up.

The International Energy Authority (IEA) predicts that over the next 20 years there will be a steady increase in demand for liquid fuels, most of which will come from China and India. It also predicts that the supply of oil from fields that are currently in production will plummet over the same time frame.

There will be additional sources of oil to help fill this gap – from fields that have been found but not yet exploited, from those yet to be found, and from unconventional sources such as Canada’s tar sands (though this is costly and particularly damaging from the point of view of climate). There is also the possibility of converting natural gas to liquid fuels. However, even adding all these into the mix, the IEA notes that there will still be a significant shortfall between demand and supply.

Moreover, some of the estimates of future supply look overly optimistic. Analysis from my institute, the Smith School, suggests that by taking the Opec figures at face value, the IEA is overestimating the reserves in fields yet to be developed by some 30%, making the shortfall even worse.

The bottom line is that demand for liquid fuels is virtually certain to outstrip production by a considerable margin over the next two decades, regardless of how much oil remains in the ground.

Knowing this, can’t oil companies simply boost their production rates or find other options? Shell recently built a plant to convert natural gas to liquid fuels in Qatar, but at some $20bn, the capital costs were enormous. Such plants can only hope to provide a sensible return on investment in the few places in the world where natural gas is plentiful. As for biofuels, although the US is likely to hit 10% of biofuels for cars later this year, globally these fuels are still only a tiny percentage of the total.

Thus, as the world emerges from the current economic downturn, all the evidence is that oil prices will take a substantial hike. Our analysis predicts that prices will soon be considerably more than $100 a barrel, peaking at around $130 by 2015. This in itself is likely to stall the global economic recovery following the financial debt crisis.

In principle, that’s good news for oil-rich countries such as Norway and the Gulf states, where higher prices mean higher GDP. But most countries in the world are oil importers and as prices rise their economies will suffer. Developing countries will be especially vulnerable, as their economies depend heavily on manufacturing and distribution, which are, in turn, dependent on transport fuels. Take Rwanda, an ambitious country whose economy is currently growing by 8% to 9% per year. We estimate that rises in oil prices over the next two decades will cumulatively cost Rwanda some 30% of its GDP.

That’s a large number. As scientific adviser to the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, I have recommended that the country should do everything in its power to decouple its economy from oil. But Rwanda is by no means atypical. In the face of rising oil prices, most net importers of oil around the world will face further recession if they have not found other ways to move themselves and their goods around. The coming supply crisis provides a clear imperative to all who are dependent on oil imports to find ways to kick the habit.

What, then, should we do? There is no silver bullet. To achieve this necessary change, we will need every weapon at our disposal. Improving the energy efficiency of our transportation will be crucial – by reducing air friction, improving engines and running smaller, lighter vehicles. Alternative fuels will also be important, moving from petrol to new generations of biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells and electric vehicles.

But we will also need to go beyond the designs of the vehicles and fuels themselves and look at changing urban design, building and improving mass transportation systems and changing the ways that people drive.

This, of course, is independent of the additional, but pressing imperative to reduce carbon emissions and prevent dangerous climate change. Put the two together and the case for change becomes overwhelming.

There’s a final reason to wean ourselves off our current dependency on oil. In these difficult economic times, we need to stop bleeding our economies by pouring money into the handful of countries that hold most of the oil.

Today, the rest of the world pours more than $2 trillion a year into the Gulf states, which is $6bn per day. This money would surely be better spent developing energy resources that are much closer to home?

Sir David King, director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford, was chief scientific adviser to the government from 2000 to 2007

“We can create a more sustainable, cleaner and safer world by making wiser energy choices”. Robert Alan

The professor was touring villages in Karnataka, gathering information for a program called Sustainable Transformation of Rural Areas. Soil and growing conditions were harsh in much of the area, and many of the villages were poor. In one such village, the professor and his team of research assistants stopped in a tea stall.

Naturally, the strangers drew attention in the small village. One villager struck up a conversation with the professor, and asked what the visitors were doing.

“We’re looking for ways to use science and engineering principles to solve real-life problems in villages like this one”, Professor Shrinivasa told the man.

The villager thought for a moment. “Well, we use oil from the Honge tree to light the lamps in our temples”, the man volunteered. “Maybe you could find some other use for that oil”.

Indeed he could. The professor, who is based at the Indian Institute of Science, found that the Honge tree (whose Latin name is Pongamia Pinnata) grew throughout the village, and oil could easily be extracted from the tree’s plentiful pods. He also recalled that many years ago Rudolf Diesel had used peanut oil when demonstrating his invention, the diesel engine. The professor told his colleagues, “Let’s try this oil in a diesel engine right here in the village”.

They got some oil, borrowed a small diesel engine, started it up and – boom! – the engine fired up, ran smoothly and kept running smoothly. Villagers immediately began using the local oil instead of spending money to buy diesel fuel.

That was a decade ago, and since then Professor Shrinivasa has traveled to relatively less fertile lands across India to promote the planting of Pongamia trees as a source of alternate fuel.

My wife Girija and I met Professor Shrinivasa recently, and found that he had lost no passion for his cause. He talked enthusiastically about the benefits of Pongamia-based bio-diesel. For one, it is grown in dry lands and hence does not lead to the food shortages sometimes caused when farmers grow corn or soya for bio-fuel instead of other crops for food. Second, in terms of emissions, bio-diesels are carbon neutral: the carbon dioxide absorbed by the trees is released when the fuel is burnt. Third, in terms of particles that cause pollution and respiratory diseases, bio-diesel emissions are less harmful than petrol and diesel.

The economics are compelling. A hectare of wasteland growing Pongamia trees can yield 10 tonnes of seeds worth around Rs. 40,000. Horticulture is far less labor intensive and hence can be done at relatively low costs, providing a good return to the farmers.  The professor’s calculations show that India has adequate availability of wastelands that can be planted with enough Pongamia trees to meet the entire nation’s petrol and diesel requirements. But this calls for enormous political will and an ability to overcome the petroleum lobbies. As a lone champion, Professor Shrinivasa has yet to build the momentum to battle these forces – but continues on his path regardless.

The Connected Age requires us to look for viable alternatives in various aspects of our daily lives. It requires us the boldly embrace these new alternatives – as they emerge. It requires us to battle the vested interests and the entrenched beliefs of the industrial age with the vision of creating a more inclusive and sustainable world. And it requires us to step forward the way the professor has, and to support people like him who have stepped forward. Do share your own insights in this area.

Long live the earth.