Climate News Live
May 2008 Archives
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-warming30-2008may30,0,4571589.story
The White House has joined the climate change movement. After a U.S. District Court ruled that the White House comply with the 1990 Global Change Research Act in August, the administration now concludes that climate change is indeed caused by greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion. For years, environmentalists have accused the administration of downplaying the impact of climate change, but Bush's top science advisor has just released a report admitting that climate change is real, which shows a shift in the administration's views.
"This report represents a stark shift in what the administration has been saying since 2001," said Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group.
However, Sharon Hays, deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the report did not represent a changed assessment but "a rolling up of a whole bunch of reports on the science, showing that climate change is primarily caused by human activity of the last 50 years.
The 271-page report comes as the Senate schedules debate over climate change legislation in the upcoming week.
Los Angeles Times: May 30, 2008
Submitted by: M. Lamarre
Company announces progress on plant that would produce ethanol from non-food biomass. Its success will help determine the outlook for biofuels as the food v. fuel debate continues...
Verenium Corporation, a pioneer in the development of next-generation cellulosic ethanol and high-performance specialty enzymes, announced today that it has begun the commissioning phase at its demonstration-scale cellulosic ethanol facility in Jennings, Louisiana….Verenium’s demonstration-scale plant in Jennings is rated to produce 1.4 million-gallons-per-year of next-generation ethanol that uses specialty enzymes and the Company’s proprietary technology to convert non-food biomass.
CNN.com; May 28, 2008
Submitted by J. Andrews
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUST171688
A group of eight of the richest states and other developing countries are scheduled to meet in Japan from May 24 to 26 to discuss and build support for long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Among the many countries that are expected to meet are China, India, Japan, the European Union and the United States. Any plans to halt greenhouse gas emissions will face obstacles because many of the countries differ on the level of actions that should take place that would not disrupt their economies.
Beijing argues that it should not have to sacrifice growth that rich countries enjoyed in the past, and wants the West to step up the transfer of technology that would make its economic rise less carbon-intensive.
In April, Bush unveiled a plan to halt the growth of U.S. emissions by 2025, toughening a previous goal of braking the growth of emissions by 2012.
The United States and China are the top emitters. The proposal has drawn criticism from environmental groups for letting emissions continue to grow for 17 years.
For real support to build on climate change, developing countries will have to make major sacrifices and not succumb to intractable dialogues and viewpoints.
Reuters: May 23, 2008
Submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/20/cmethical20.xml
Investing in climate change is proving to be profitable for governments, corporations, and investors from many sectors. Governments recent subsidies towards energy-efficient programs is bringing in newfound wealth for investors. In addition, the rising price of oil have been influential in pushing investments towards alternative energy sources. CEO's are taking charge in ways that were unforeseen.
"Eight years ago, there were around 350 companies to choose from in this sector," says Christie at BlackRock. "Now there are around 1,100. These companies are also growing up – a large number already have a competitive product and are profitable."
Christie estimates that, as little as four years ago, only around 30 percent of the companies in the BlackRock portfolio were making a profit. Now that figure is 90 percent.
There are is no one way to profit from climate change. Corporations are finding innovative strategies to reap the benefits of climate change from government subsidies and consumer demands.
Daily Telegraph: May 20, 2008
submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/05/20/cmethical20.xml
Investing in climate change is proving to be profitable for governments, corporations, and investors from many sectors. Governments recent subsidies towards energy-efficient programs is bringing in newfound wealth for investors. In addition, the rising price of oil have been influential in pushing investments towards alternative energy sources. CEO's are taking charge in ways that were unforeseen.
"Eight years ago, there were around 350 companies to choose from in this sector," says Christie at BlackRock. "Now there are around 1,100. These companies are also growing up – a large number already have a competitive product and are profitable."
Christie estimates that, as little as four years ago, only around 30 per cent of the companies in the BlackRock portfolio were making a profit. Now that figure is 90 per cent.
There are is no one way to profit from climate change. Corporations are finding innovative strategies to reap the benefits of climate change from government subsidies and consumer demands.
Daily Telegraph: May 20, 2008
submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5790122.html
Citing its impact on food prices, Texas Senator introduces legislation to freeze corn-ethanol fuel standard. While its consideration is unlikely, there is increased attention being paid to the long-term impacts of the renewable fuel standard.
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to freeze the amount of ethanol produced from corn. The senior senator from Texas filed a bill that would keep production of corn-based ethanol at this year's level of 9 billion gallons. A law passed last year requires that amount increase annually reaching 15 billion in 2015 and 36 billion by 2022. Hutchison says the requirement is a big reason for this year's rising food prices. Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Republican presidential nominee John McCain are co-sponsors.
The Houston Chronicle; May 19, 2008
Submitted by J. Andrews
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9YzbkbPjYwP_3-9wZhTNbMcZSAQD90OC2T80
Since Hurricane Katrina, scientists and the media have been reporting that climate change will make ocean waters warmer, which will in turn lead to a more severe hurricane season. An advocate of this idea, research meteorologist Tom Knutson, has recently reversed course and proclaimed he believes climate change has not been a factor in the worsening hurricane seasons.
What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J.
He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming.
He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."
The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.
Several other prominent meteorologists have denounced Knutson's computer modeling. This only enhances the need for more coordination between scientists on climate change studies, especially between the various state and federal government agencies.
Associated Press; May 18, 2008
Submitted by B. Shapiro
Britain's international project to help poor countries deal with climate change is facing heavy criticism for requiring those countries to pay them back with interest. The UK's environment transformation fund allocated 800 million dollars to help poorer nations deal with droughts and storms in 2007. However, more developed countries are surprised to hear that those funds will not come in forms of grants, as expected, but loans that have to be paid back with interest.
"We need urgently to prepare for climate change, but we are not in a position to pay back loans," said a spokesman for the Bangladesh high commission (embassy) in London. "The climate situation has not been created by us. The money should come spontaneously from rich countries and not be a loan."
The United States, Brazil, and Toby Quantrill, head of international government at WWF have all expressed concerns about having poor countries pay back loans when they are already in debt. "It should be grants and not loans, otherwise developing countries will have to pay twice, once for the emissions that caused the problems and then again to clean up the mess," said Tom Sharman, a policy adviser with ActionAid in London.
Gulf Times; May 18, 2008
Submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/15/climatechange
What species will be the next projected victim of climate change? First, it was polar bears. Then last week, insects in tropical habitats were faced with their grim fate. This week's victim is poor people. According to Sri Lankan-born expert on climate change and sustainable development, Professor Mohan Munasinghe, he predicts that harsh environmental conditions brought on by climate change will widen the existing gap between the "have's" and the "have not's". Unless the greenhouse gas emissions are curbed, Munasinghe predicts a state where the more fortunate isolate themselves and those less fortunate are left out in the cold (or the heat, as the case may be).
Professor Mohan Munasinghe was giving a lecture at Cambridge university in which he presented a dystopic possible future world in which social problems are made much worse by the environmental consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions. "Climate change is, or could be, the additional factor which will exacerbate the existing problems of poverty, environmental degradation, social polarisation and terrorism and it could lead to a very chaotic situation," he said.
The scenario, which he termed "barbarisation" was already beginning to happen, he said. "Fortress world is a situation where the rich live in enclaves, protected, and the poor live outside in unsustainable conditions."
The Guardian; May 15, 2008
Submitted by HybridHoney
The battle over who should receive profits made from the proposed climate change bill, S.2191 the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, is ramping up and dozens of Fortune 500 companies, environmental groups, and leading figures from both parties in Congress. All argue that they know the best way to handle the profits.
Coal-burning utilities say they should be given the permits for free - otherwise, they argue, their customers will be whacked with much higher bills. Others, including candidates Obama and Clinton, say all the permits should be auctioned - why reward the polluters, they ask? Still others want auctions so that proceeds can be used for a variety of causes, ranging from investments in renewable-energy research to middle-class tax cuts to paying down the federal debt.
Environmental groups, meanwhile, worry that the fight over free allocations versus auctions threatens to get in the way of the most important part of the legislation - enacting strong emissions caps. "What we care most about," says Nat Keohane of the Environmental Defense Fund, "is establishing strong and declining mandatory caps that get us the emissions targets that scientists say we need."
The new cap-and-trade bill is expected to generate up to $150 billion in profits. Higher food and electrical prices are all being evaluated before deciding on the beneficiaries of the expected profit.
CNN; May 15, 2008
Submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2216537/green-mbas
There is much debate over how to commence the "green jobs training program" that is necessary to assist with the expected wave of green-collar jobs. Many graduate business programs are beginning to ramp up their efforts to introduce business leaders to this emerging green market.
Two years ago the Worldwatch Institute indicated there were only four business schools in the US that focused on sustainability. Fast-forward to today and a simple Google search shows many more institutions have integrated sustainability as a component in their business school curricula.
Globally, institutions seem to be recognising the necessity of educating a next generation of business leaders who will have more than just financial returns and industry domination on their minds. Policies to lessen pressure on resources, improve management of environmental risks and increase the social equity of business practices and procedures are on the rise. Additionally, increased consumer awareness of environmental and social issues will continue to influence actions of corporations, governments and non-profits.
As these companies begin modifying the way they do their business to include greater environmental and social responsibility they will be seeking talent to help successfully shape these changes. Green collar jobs will likely be filled by labourers shifting from blue collar work and it seems that future C-level and upper management positions will need to be filled by leaders with working knowledge of sustainability.
BusinessGreen; May 15, 2008
Submitted by B.Shapiro
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE15Dj02.html
Once upon a time, genetically engineered foods were touted as the greatest gift science had to offer humanity. The unexpected consumer backlash against these goods never gave them the chance to clean up the environment or feed the entire world. However, climate change is beginning to kill off crops or make growing conditions inhospitable. Could genetically engineered food be the answer to the looming food crisis brought on by climate change?
According to a new report from ETC Group, the world's largest seed and agrochemical corporations such as Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow, along with biotech partners such as Mendel, Ceres and Evogene, are stockpiling hundreds of patents and patent applications on crop genes related to environmental stress tolerance at patent offices around the world. They have acquired a total of 55 patent families corresponding to 532 patents and patent applications.
In the face of climate chaos and a deepening world food crisis, the gene giants are gearing up for a public relations offensive to rebrand themselves as climate saviors. The companies hope to convince governments and reluctant consumers that genetic engineering is the essential adaptation strategy to insure agricultural productivity.
In the words of Keith Jones of CropLife International, an industry-supported non-profit organization, "GM foods are exactly the technology that may be necessary to counter the effects of global warming." But rather than an effective way to confront climate change, these so-called "climate-ready" crops will be used to drive farmers and governments onto a proprietary biotech platform.
Looks like its time to buy stock in the companies mentioned above!
Asia Times; May 15, 2008
Submitted by B. Shapiro
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080513/ap_on_go_ot/climate_service
The U.S. Climate Change Science program does not do enough coordination between 13 agencies conduction research on climate change, says the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Conrad C. Lautenbacher wants to form a National Climate Service within his agency to better coordinate data from U.S. agencies and other countries.
Today everybody just cherry-picks the data that support their point of view, Lautenbacher said of the debate over climate change. "We need to deal with this in a scientific manner."
Whether there is warming or not, no one doesn't want solid, scientific information, Lautenbacher said. That, he added, could depoliticize the arguments.
The Bush Administration has been reluctant to subscribe to limits on carbon emissions that other countries have sought in an effort to combat global warming.
But Lautenbacher said the White House has signed off on "the idea" of a climate service, and he said he plans to seek funds to help organize it in the 2010 budget.
The National Climate Service would not take over other agencies' research. Now the question is, how much would a program like this cost? The media has picked up on this suggestion rather quickly, now we'll see what Congress thinks.
Associated Press; 5/14/08
Submitted by B. Shapiro
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080512/wr_nm/usa_politics_mccain_dc_1
The presumptive Republican nominee for President and Arizona Senator, John McCain, is heading out to Portland, Oregon today to pitch his climate change proposal that he hopes will set him apart from the current Republican president, George W. Bush. McCain's plan aims to help big businesses and combat climate change from an international front.
If elected president, McCain said he would push for "meaningful environmental protocols" that included developing industrial powers India and China, to seek to cut worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
He planned to present a so-called cap and trade system to Congress that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gas emissions for U.S. businesses, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions, so as to "change the dynamic" of the U.S. energy economy.
McCain believes that his plan would return greenhouse house gas emissions to the levels seen in the 90's by 2020. He has indicated support for the current Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act provided it include significant provisions for nuclear energy.
Reuters; May 12, 2008
Submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2008/05/08/89817.htm
Attending to climate change is a multi-billion dollar investment. However, researches are suggesting that money should be spent on a gamut of related issues to profit from climate spending.
An assault on climate change on many fronts makes good economic sense but will be money badly spent if the world focuses exclusively on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, a new study said on Thursday.
A 100-year package costing $800 billion to help people adapt to the impacts of warming -- such as droughts or rising seas -- while also funding research into new technology and curbing emissions could yield benefits of $2.1 trillion, it said.
The same imaginary $800 billion invested solely in curbing or mitigating emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, would lose money overall with returns of just $685 billion. Until now, emissions curbs have been the overriding focus.
Shifting research from curbing emissions to new technology will lead to enhanced resources to combat hunger, health effects and flooding caused by climate change.
Reuters; May 8, 2008
Submitted by M. Lamarre
Women in poor counties are more susceptible to the devastating consequences of climate change, says 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai. While men have more flexibility when it comes to relocating, women and children dependent on natural resources are generally less mobile and, as a result, cannot escape the harsh natural conditions that have become characteristic of many regions in Africa. War, malnutrition, disease and environmental woes in developing countries are not likely to remain at the status quo, let alone improve, without significant effort and cooperation on behalf of wealthier counterparts in terms of both foreign aid and climate change mitigation.
"Many destructive activities against the environment disproportionately affect women, because most women in the world, and especially in the developing world, are very dependent on primary natural resources: land, forests, waters," said Wangari Maathai of Kenya.
"Men can trek and go looking for greener pastures in other areas in other countries ... but for women, they're usually left on site to face the consequences," she said. "So when there is deforestation, when there is drought, when there is crop failure, it is the women and children who are the most adversely affected."
"If you don't deal with development and climate, you will have an increasingly insecure world," Williams said. "But if you're going to deal with it, you need to deal with it in terms of climate justice."
That meant rich countries, including the United States, must cut their own pollution and greenhouse emissions -- not just offer aid for environmentally sound development.
To improve the quality of life for women in developing nations, one must look at the link between climate and development. It is imperative that international attention be focused on forcing wealthier countries to abide by preventative measures, so long as they pay less fortunate countries to do the same.
Reuters; May 7, 2008
Submitted by HybridHoney
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48238/story.htm
Without a doubt, nuclear energy is one of the more controversial topics in energy and politics. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee running for President, is a big advocate of drastically increasing the number of nuclear power plants in the United States. On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama likes nukes as well, though he doesn’t feel the federal government should provide subsidies for building these new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting sources of electricity. Sen. Hillary Clinton is the most reserved of the three, preferring renewable fuels because of nuclear power's safety and disposal concerns.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.
The key roadblock to new US nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (145 km) from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns.
The proliferation of nuclear energy in the United States while denying developing nations like North Korea and Iran the same power sources seem hypocritical, but some argue that our advancement of nuclear science can help us aid these nations in ensuring they don't use nuclear material for weaponry. It seems the true future of nuclear power economically, politically, and climatologically will be decided in November 2008.
Planet Ark; May 7, 2008
Submitted by B. Shapiro
http://news.smh.com.au/world-may-be-heating-quickly-scientist/20080507-2bul.html
Studies done by CSIRO and Victoria University shows that climate change is worse than what some scientists expected, as warmer-than-expected weather is predicted for the future. However, the news is not all bad because the cumulative actions taken to reduce emissions by 2050 may benefit the world citizens in 2100.
Climate change is happening faster than predicted and the world could be as much as seven degrees hotter by the end of the century, a CSIRO scientist says.
New Australian research showed current policies did not go far enough to manage the risks posed by climate change, according to Dr Roger Jones, a climate risk analyst with CSIRO's energy transformed flagship. Global action was needed by 2015 to adequately reduce those risks, he said.
Developing nations and commodity-producing nations such as Australia are expected to increase their share of greenhouse gas emissions as their economies mature.
The Sydney Morning Herald; May 7, 2008
Submitted by M. Lamarre
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
Oil hit over $122 a barrel today. If you don't own stock in an oil company yet, an analyst at Goldman Sachs thinks you should buy.
A new Goldman Sachs prediction that oil prices could rise to $150 to $200 within two years seemed to motivate much of Tuesday’s buying, although a falling dollar and increasing concerns about declining crude production in Mexico and Russia contributed, analysts say.
Oil prices have nearly doubled from about $62 a barrel a year ago, which Goldman sees as a sign that the world is in the midst of a "super spike" in oil prices. Analyst Arjun Murti said in a research note released Monday that prices would ultimately force demand to fall sharply.
Indeed, it’s not the first time Murti has espoused a super spike theory; in an April 2005 note, he predicted the oil market was in the early stages of an unprecedented rally that would send prices from a then-record of about $57 a barrel to $105.
An analyst from Citigroup says crude oil prices could fall to $40 a barrel as easily as they could top $200. Everyone scoffed at Murti's predictions in 2005. Last time I checked, Citigroup was in desperate need of a bail-out and the people at Goldman Sachs were buying Ferraris and Porsches with their bonuses.
MSNBC; May 5, 2008.
Submitted by B. Shapiro
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23644580-643,00.html
Australians seeking an expert pairing for their shrimp on a bar-bee will have to look much further than the outback. According to scientists, climate change combined with poor irrigation could
devastate the country's wine production. In addition, the rising temperatures will impact the grapes that farmers will be able to grow, putting varieties such as Pinot Noir in danger of going the way of the "spit bucket." Vineyards have already started buying property in cooler locations to compensate for the expected effects of climate change and are diversifying their product portfolio.Visiting Australia on a fellowship with Melbourne University, environmental scientist Dr. Greg Jones said winemakers in the US and Europe were buying up land at higher altitudes and in coastal regions where cooler conditions would provide a buffer to global warming.
Similarly, in Australia, as higher temperatures reduce inland rainfall, horticultural zones reliant on irrigation, such as the Murray-Darling Basin, may no longer be productive.
"The biggest issue in Australia is how the water situation will work its way out. Without irrigation, 80 percent of the Australian industry is in peril," Dr Jones said.Crikey! Talk about leaving a bad taste in your mouth!
The Australian; May 5, 2008
Submitted by HybridHoney
As talk of Climate Change intensifies and ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are sought, attention has turned to using more natural gas as the cleaner energy alternative. But this doesn't mean that natural gas is free of carbon dioxide emissions. Combustion of natural gas results in roughly half the carbon dioxide release of coal when compared on an "equivalent" energy basis. Now comes Exxon Mobil with plans to invest $100 million in development of a new technology that could reduce the cost of removing and capturing carbon dioxide from natural gas, possibly allowing for lower quality natural gas to be used thus adding to the available supply.
The company plans to build a commercial demonstration plant near LaBarge, Wyoming, where it will use ExxonMobil’s Controlled Freeze Zone technology, known as CFZ. CFZ is a single-step cryogenic separation process that freezes out and then melts the carbon dioxide and removes other components including hydrogen sulfide, which is found in so-called sour gas. If successful, the process will reduce the cost of carbon dioxide removal from produced natural gas.
Using the CFZ™ process, the carbon dioxide and other components are discharged as a high-pressure liquid stream for injection into underground storage or for use in reservoir management to enhance oil recovery. Besides reducing the cost of separation, transportation and reinjection, the CFZ™ process can eliminate the use of solvents, sulfur plants and carbon dioxide venting in processing of the natural gas.
Exxon Mobil; May 5, 2008
Submitted by R. Campbell
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0531028720080505
Carbon capture and sequestration is marketed as the silver bullet to allow coal-fired power plants continue operation while limiting the harmful emissions released into the atmosphere. After capturing the carbon dioxide, utilities will need to store it somewhere. Current technology allows us to inject it into the ground where it won't get back into the carbon cycle.
Greenpeace and more than 100 other environmental groups denounced projects for burying industrial greenhouse gases on Monday, exposing splits in the green movement about whether such schemes can slow global warming.
But Greenpeace issued a 44-page report about the technology entitled "False Hope".
"Carbon capture and storage is a scam. It is the ultimate coal industry pipe dream," said Emily Rochon, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace International and author of the report.
Greenpeace and 112 green groups from 21 nations said governments should invest in wind, solar and other renewable energies rather than in capture technologies that would allow coal-fired power plants to stay in operation.
CCS projects are expensive, but are they worth it? Technologies can be applied to existing coal plants to slow climate change at a lesser cost to consumers than shutting down coal plants entirely. In the future, more focus should go towards large-scale renewable electricity projects and no new coal plants should be built.
Reuters; May 5, 2008
Submitted by B. Shapiro
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120994726465866383.html
In the recent wake of EPA's denial to let California regulate automobile emissions with a law that is far stricter than Federal regulations, automakers are taking the fight to states that have adopted or pledged to adopt policies similar to California.
Big money is at stake. A law adopted by California in 2002 would effectively require the auto industry to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, equivalent to an average fuel economy level of roughly 35 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than a recently passed federal energy law.
The Bush Administration has blocked California from enforcing its proposed CO2 standards for cars, but recent decisions in federal courts pose a risk that eventually California and other states could be freed to push ahead. More than a dozen states are challenging the administration's decision in federal court, and the three remaining major-party presidential candidates have expressed support for California's efforts to regulate emissions.
The Bush Administration's logic to deny California a waiver to regulate cars' greenhouse gas emissions is that the 2007 energy bill required an increase in CAFE standards that shouldn't be pre-empted by state initiatives. The automakers are rallying around this point, bolstering it with claims of how these state regulations will hurt their sales.
Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2008
Submitted by B. Shapiro
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/04/BALG10G2RL.DTL
Although the state budget could reach a deficit of $20 billion this year, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is committed to implementing the anti-global warming bill AB32 he signed two years ago.
The governor's latest budget proposal calls for no fewer than 211 greenhouse-gas busters to be sprinkled throughout state government, at an annual cost of $55.4 million.
That's 77 more greenies than are on the payroll this year.
The new jobs range from $36,000-a-year accounting technicians to $102,000-a-year attorneys to draft and enforce green regulations.
Economists have largely focused on the private sector's green job growth, but this is one of the first examples of how local/state/federal government will also experience such a growth.
San Francisco Chronicle; May 4, 2008
Submitted by B. Shapiro
Buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company is partnering with the Environmental Defense Fund to help it improve the environmental performance of the dozens of businesses it owns. As one of the largest private equity firms, its decision to back environmental enterprises could push other firms to get into the green game.
Kohlberg Kravis’s partnership with Environmental Defense is aimed at creating measurement tools of environmental performance across several areas, from energy efficiency and greenhouse-gas emissions to water consumption and containment of toxic substances across all of its businesses.
New York Times; May 1, 2008
Submitted by M. Brooks
