For the last few weeks it’s tomatos, those wonderful fruits. Over 300 cases of salmonella poisoning from eating tomatoes (maybe) were reported all over the U.S., a country of 300 million people.

Were you afraid to eat a tomato? You do the math of your odds of getting sick from eating one (hint: odds similiar to you winning the lottery). So naturally, we removed all tomatoes from market shelves all over the country and restaurants stopped serving tomatoes on burgers and in your salad.

No matter that nobody died, and probably AT LEAST  50,000 cases of food poisoning occur every DAY from an assortment of bacteria in your food. Maybe you ate a bad oyster or clam, the food server in the restaurant didn’t wash his hands, you ate a chicken sandwich that sat out at room temperature for a few hours, an ecoli burger, etc. So you spend the whole night not sleeping, but barfing and having diarrhea and the next day you feel awful. You don’t report to some doctor because if you have any brains you know what happened and you know you will be fine the day after tomorrow.

To top it off, on June 17 the FDA said all those junked tomatoes would have been safe to eat after all!! The only food scare more stupid than this latest one is the mad cow scare in the U.S. a few years ago. ONE, count em, one cow was discovered to have mad cow disease in  Washington state. Nobody would eat beef and it was a DAIRY cow, not even slated to enter the food supply.

Because of that one sick cow, Japan and South Korea stopped importing all U.S. beef. Of course, the whole mad cow thing started in Europe in the 1980’s. It was hypothesized, and it is still just a hypothesis, that eating mad cow meat could cause  Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in human meat eaters, maybe perhaps.

For more than a decade, 60 million meat eaters in Great Britain had been eating mad cow meat without knowing it. The result? Around 300 people got that disease, maybe from the meat but maybe not, and the whole British beef industry was destroyed (Germany too). I’ll let you do the math on that as well as the tomatoes! I invite comments, especially from readers who might have more good examples of how easily the public can be fooled and terrified by the scare du hour, du week, du month, du year.

In the U.S., Memorial day is BBQ day, especially this year when gasoline prices make lots of folks prefer to stay home and have a cookout with friends instead of travelling somewhere. Get out that lighter fluid, squirt in on your mesquite charcoal briquettes, and fire up. Then grill those hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, chicken, or whatever and enjoy. BUT WAIT! Grilling or frying any meats creates chemicals that when ingested in really, really high doses causes cancer in laboratory rats. What to do? I lived in Texas for a few years, a state in which proper BBQ (which includes slow smoking of meats in addition to grilling (both producing carcinogens) is a religion. Now I live in California, where many people actually worry about carcinogens in grilled meats.

This post was inspired by an article in my local newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, called “cue tips” http://www.sacbee.com/165/story/960506.html.  The article gives advice about how to minimize exposure to these putative nasty chemicals when you grill. Unfortunately, if you follow their advice, the meat you cook will taste like cardboard! First they would have you use lean meats,  trim off all fat, and flip the meat often. They would even have you microwave your steaks awhile before grilling. This is all supposed to reduce the amount of carcinogens formed. A dead Texan would be turning over in his grave reading the Bee article! You might as well cook the steak or burger in boiling water. They would even have you clean your grill with dish detergent!!!

The reason I must post this BBQ blasphemy is because these cautions are just another example of our national obsessive fear-mongering about anything that might be enjoyable.  For more information, readers should read my essay from a few years back on Ecoworld entitled “Chemophobia” http://ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=366. Toward the end of the article I describe research I did on benzo-a-pyrene, a rat carcinogen formed during the frying of meats. Although the fear mongers will say otherwise, NOBODY will EVER get cancer simply from eating fried or grilled meats. I know of no epidemiology study that has compared cancer rates in people who eat lots of BBQ meats vs. those who perhaps eat their meat prepared otherwise (perhaps raw?). If anyone can show me one that purports to show that BBQers have an increased risk of some cancer, please send it to me for critique.  For more about how “scientific” studies are abused, read “Studies Show” http://ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=458.

by Marc Morano -

Newsweek Magazine’s cover story of August 13, 2007 entitled, “The Truth About Denial” contains very little that could actually be considered balanced, objective or fair by journalistic standards. (LINK)

The one-sided editorial, masquerading as a “news article,” was written by Sharon Begley with Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift and Matthew Philips and purports to examine the “well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.”

Environmentalists don’t have to be global warming alarmists.

The only problem is - Newsweek knew better. Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )

This week’s “news article” in Newsweek follows the Magazine’s October 23, 2006 article which admitted the error of their ways in the 1970’s when they predicted dire global cooling. (See: Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70’s Predictions of Coming Ice Age – LINK)

Use of Word ‘Denier’

First, let’s take a look at Newsweek’s use of the word “denier” when describing a scientist who views with skepticism the unproven computer models predicting future climate doom. The use of this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 (LINK)

“Let’s be blunt. This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

Newsweek Fails Basic Arithmetic

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (LINK)

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California “proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming,” according to the Sacramento Bee. (LINK) Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails.(LINK)

Update: Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)

Capitalists can love nature & environmentalists can love profit. (Photo: Mark Jackson)

Global Warming ‘A Big Cash Grab’

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics. “[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears. “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story,” Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK)

“Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann added. ‘An Entrenched Interest’ Atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer, co-author of the book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,” also detailed the extensive financing machine the proponents of man-made global warming enjoy. “Tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams,” Singer explained on June 30, 2007. (LINK)

“In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage,” Singer added. For a detailed breakdown of how much money flows to promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007 EPW blog post: (LINK)

The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics. (LINK)

Could it be that the alarmists realize that the American public is increasingly rejecting their proposition that the family SUV is destroying the earth and rejecting their shrill calls for ‘action’ to combat their computer model predictions of a ‘climate emergency?’” (See EPW Blog for full article – LINK)

As Senator Inhofe further explained in a September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech: “The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.” (LINK)

Senator Inhofe further explained: “I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ — especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.” (LINK)

Now contrast all of the above with how much money the “well funded” skeptics allegedly receive. The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision) The most repeated accusation is that organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears have received $19 Million from an oil corporation over the past two decades. This was the subject of a letter by two U.S. Senators in 2006 (See Senators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the $19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to groups skeptical of man-made global warming – LINK)

To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider: One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors” contribute to global warming exceeded all of the money that skeptics reportedly received from an oil giant in the past two decades. To repeat: One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors” in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics have been accused of receiving from an oil giant over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article: “The United States Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you’re also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.” (LINK) or (LINK)

As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as Newsweek’s article is, the magazine sunk deeper into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that skeptical Climatologist Patrick Michaels had reportedly received industry funding without revealing to readers the full funding picture. The magazine article mentions NASA’s James Hansen as some sort of example of a scientist untainted by funding issues. But what Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen had received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation run by Senator John Kerry’s wife Teresa in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed Kerry for President in 2004. (LINK)

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has noted how proponents of man-made climate fears enjoy huge funding advantages. “Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding,” Lindzen wrote in a April 12, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. (LINK)

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis,” Lindzen added. (For more on the vilification of climate skeptics see LINK)

Loving wilderness and wildlife is universal.

Science Vindicating Skeptics

Finally, Newsweek’s editorial rant attempts to make it appear as though the science is getting stronger in somehow proving mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. There are, however, major problems with that assertion. Scientists are speaking up around the globe to denounce Gore, the UN and the media driven “consensus” on global warming. Just recently, an EPW report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – LINK]

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, detailed how he left the global warming funding “gravy train” and became a skeptic. “By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming,” Evans explained. “But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. (LINK)

In addition, just last week, three new scientific studies further strengthened the skeptics’ views on climate change. (LINK) Further, a recent analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks any fears of Greenland melting and a frightening sea level rise. [See July 30, 2007 - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt - LINK]

Newsweek: A Media Dinosaur

The question remains: Is Newsweek even a news outlet worth taking the time to respond to in posts like this? Does Newsweek, a quirky alternative news outlet, even have an impact on public policy anymore? Journalism students across the world can read this week’s cover story to learn how reporting should not be done. Hopefully, that will be Newsweek’s legacy — serving as a shining example of the failure of modern journalism to adhere to balance, objectivity and fairness. Anyone who fails to see this inconvenient truth is truly (to borrow Newsweek’s vernacular) a “denier.” Background of recent climate science developments: Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. (LINK)

The New York Times is now debunking aspects of climate alarmism. An April 23, 2006 article in the New York Times by Andrew Revkin stated: “few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions.) There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.” The New York Times is essentially conceding that no recent weather events are outside of natural climate variability. So all the climate doomsayers have to back up their claims of climate fears are unproven computer models of the future. Of course, you can’t prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 wrong today. It’s simply not possible.

Climate Computer Models Not So Reliable

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” (LINK)

A leading scientific skeptic of global warming fears, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO and director of research for the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, took the critique of climate models that predict future doom a step further. Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007, “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.” (LINK)

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler,” Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK)

The article continued, “[Giegengack] says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct linear way.” Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one of the reasons climate models fail is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

New data is revealing what may perhaps be the ultimate inconvenient truth for climate doomsayers: Global warming stopped in 1998. Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July 2007: (LINK)

“In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.” Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists from believers in man-made global warming to skeptics (LINK) and the new peer-reviewed research is why so many proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to threats and intimidation in attempting to silence skeptics. (See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK)

It is ironic that Newsweek quoted former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth to promote climate fears and vilify skeptics. After all, it was Wirth who reportedly said in 1990: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (LINK) It seems that the science underlying the claims of climate fears may not be as important to the global warming activists as their proposed tax and regulatory “solutions.”

# #

Related Links:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven “Consensus”

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune’s Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming ‘Silly’ - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to “Scare Each Other”

Weather Channel TV Host Goes ‘Political’- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don’t Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes ‘Man-Made Global Warming Hype’

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of “Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming”

# # #

This was originally published in August 5th, 2007 on the Inhofe Environmental and Public Works Blog, entitled “Newsweek’s Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism” and is republished with permission.

Earlier this month at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit 2008, heads of state, ministers, policymakers, corporate leaders, NGO’s and financiers met for three days to address the issue of climate change. During the event, the REEEP South Asia Regional Secretariat organised a workshop to discuss financial risk management in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Risk is a major concern for financiers and investors.

The Indian renewable energy sector has shown impressive growth in the last few years and investment in the sector have increased significantly. However, investment still lags behind expectations and market potential is not being fully realised. According to the Government of India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy the country’s short term goal is to add approximately 24GW of new capacity from renewables by 2012. Currently installed capacity is about 11 GW. The planned increase in capacity requires more than Euro 3 million in investment.

Mr Creon Butler, UK Deputy High Commissioner, spoke about the UK government’s intent to establish an £800 million environmental transformation fund, which will be made available to developing countries for transition to a low carbon growth path.

Mr. Chadrashekar Iyer, Associate Director, PricewaterhouseCoopers said, “The renewable energy sector in India has been increasing at 20% annually and the annual turnover of the renewables industry is reaching Euro 1.7 billion. Policy and regulatory frameworks are an important factor to promote investment and policies must guide investment into projects that can improve energy production.”

Fuel supply, performance and technology, regulatory and credit risks were some of the major risks identified in the Indian context during the event. In order to address the issue of risk mitigation, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) recently provided funding to a two year project in India to analyse the risks and barriers facing the renewable energy industry. The project is expected to develop risk management instruments and policy recommendations.

The finance community has shown great interest in the project. Mr Debashish Majumdar, Chairman and Managing Director of the Indian Renewable Energy Agency (IREDA) emphasized the enormous potential of renewable energy and urged the finance community to enable the renewables industry to tap into this potential efficiently.

Dr. Marianne Osterkorn, International Director of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), underlined the partnership’s commitment to “proactive cooperation with financial institutions and development agencies, and mainstreaming technology transfer into REEEP projects.”

By Terry Wang, Interfax China, March 6, 2008

China is ready to adopt a nationwide permit-based pollutant emission trading scheme as a key part of its drive to increase energy efficiency and reduce pollution, an official with the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) said at an industry conference on Thursday March 6th.
“China has attained the necessary conditions for setting up a trading exchange for pollutant discharge permits,” said Mu Huaipeng, director of the central bank’s financial market department.

The country, which aims to cut emissions of major pollutants by 10 percent during the 2006-2010 period, initiated a pilot sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions trading trial program in 2002. The program allows companies in the provinces of Shandong, Shanxi, Jiangsu and Henan, as well as the cities of Shanghai, Tianjin and Liuzhou, to exchange emission credits with the China Huaneng Group, the country’s largest power producer.

Jiangsu’s provincial government announced in November last year that a full buy-and-sell water pollution emissions trading system would come into effect at the beginning of this year. Some 266 enterprises that discharge pollutants into Lake Tai, which is notorious for serious pollution problems, must buy permits from other firms if they exceed their emission quotas. Initial pollution permit prices are set at RMB 10.5 ($1.48) per kilogram of chemical oxygen demand (COD), a measurement of water pollution, for chemical firms; RMB 5.2 ($0.73) for printing and dyeing mills; and RMB 1.8 ($0.25) for paper mills.

Despite the lengthy implementation of the trial programs, the country has stalled the launch of a national trading system. Industry insiders say that is due to complications that arose regarding permit allocation.

“There is a lot of disagreement over how emission permits should be allocated between different industries, and whether the industrial output values of various sectors should be taken into consideration,” said an official with Guohua Electric Power, a power subsidiary under China’s major coal producer Shenhua Group. “But, I believe such a domestic trading system will be implemented very soon,” the official, who wished to remain anonymous, said.

The pollution permit trading system is one of a series of moves initiated by the Chinese government aimed at improving
environmental protection measures.

According to rules drawn up last year by the State Environment Protection Bureau, PBOC and the China Banking Regulatory Commission, financial institutions are forbidden from extending credit to any newly-constructed project that has not gone through proper environmental assessments, and will be penalized if credit is not withheld from enterprises that have exceeded emission quotas or failed to apply for necessary emissions permits.

This article was originally published by Interfax-China, and is republished with permission.  Interfax-China’s team of in-country analysts track China’s industries and markets, providing comprehensive daily coverage of China’s energy sector.  Learn how more about these markets and the opportunities they offer your business. Learn about energy in China through our China Energy Weekly and focused energy reports carbon trading, clean & renewable energy, CTL, oil & gas, and power generation.  Free Trial – Contact Andrew Billard; andrew@interfax.cn or by phone at 86-10-8532-5021 (Beijing, China).

by Yang Jing, Interfax China, March 6, 2007 

A senior official with China Shenhua Group said at an industrial forum in Beijing on Tuesday that the CTL (coal-to-liquids) process is sufficiently efficient and environmentally friendly, dismissing comments that such technology wastes too much energy and hurts the environment.

Wu Xiuzhang, the vice chief engineer at Shenhua Group, said at the CTLtec Asia 2008 conference that its CTL project, which will have an annual oil production capacity of 1.08 million tons, will be put into operation in September.

The CTL project, located in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, will be the first in China. According to Wu, most of the project’s output will be diesel fuel, but will also include naphtha and LPG (liquefied petroleum gas).

Wu said that energy conversion efficiency of CTL processes can reach 59.3 percent, higher than the IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) process, which, he said, is deemed the power generation technology with the highest energy efficiency.

However, Dr. Gary Kendall with World Wildlife Fund International said at the same forum that the “mine-to-wheels” efficiency of CTL products is only 12 percent, while that of IGCC plant is as much as 30 percent.

“Mine to wheels” means the process’s total efficiency in converting coal into liquid fuel for vehicles.

Kendall said that CTL has no place in a responsible energy plan, since the coal-to-electron for vehicles process can deliver
almost three times as many kilometers as CTL.

Another debate arose at the conference regarding the considerable water consumption of the CTL process. Wu said that Shenhua Group’s CTL project will consume 8 tons of water for each ton of oil product output, while the total water consumption for crude oil exploitation and oil refining processes is 6 tons for each ton of oil product output. Wu said it is untrue that CTL projects need significantly more water supplies than other energy development projects, adding that there will be very little water waste in Shenhua Group’s project, since most water will be re-used.

In addition, Wu said that patty residue from the project will be used as the feedstock of a power plant.

CTL projects are believed to produce much more carbon dioxide than conventional crude refining.

According to Wu, 44.61 percent of carbon produced by the feedstock for this project becomes carbon dioxide, meaning the project will emit 4.16 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, or 3.75 tons for each ton of oil product output and half a ton for each barrel of oil output.

However, Wu said that over 70 percent of the carbon dioxide output from this project will have a carbon dioxide concentration as high as 92.15 percent, which means it will be easy to utilize for other purposes. Wu said Shenhua Group has already initiated talks with West Virginia University about treatment of carbon dioxide emissions.

In addition, Wu said that because the price of crude oil on the international market is still at a very high level, Shenhua Group’s project will be profitable. He said it will be economically feasible if the price of crude oil price stands at over $40 per barrel.

Interfax Commentary: As China depends more and more on oil imports, coal chemical development, including CTL technology, will be important to the country’s energy security. Three demonstration projects are now under construction and will start operation in 2008 and 2009.

It is clear that China needs to rely more on its abundant coal reserve to ensure domestic energy supplies, but the government may be cautious when making plans to develop coal chemical projects, especially regarding water supply and whether such processes are the best way to use coal.

This article was originally published by Interfax-China, and is republished with permission.  Interfax-China’s team of in-country analysts track China’s industries and markets.  This article is part of comprehensive daily coverage of China’s energy sector. Learn how more about these markets and the opportunities they offer your business.  Learn about energy in China through our China Energy Weekly and focused energy reports carbon trading, clean & renewable energy, CTL, oil & gas, and power generation.  Free Trial – Contact Andrew Billard; andrew@interfax.cn or by phone at 86-10-8532-5021 (Beijing, China).

by Gordon Feller, Urban Age Institute, January 18, 2008

Bangladesh has made impressive economic and social strides over the last two decades. It has achieved steady economic growth of around 5% annually, with relatively low inflation and a stable fiscal situation. Population growth and infant mortality rates have declined and primary school enrollment rates, particularly of girls, have improved dramatically.  The rate of growth of per capita GDP has improved from less than 2% during the 1980s to over 5% during 1995-05.

Despite these substantial gains, a large unfinished agenda remains in terms of attaining the MDGs, which would require an acceleration of the economic growth rate to 6-7% per annum.  Accelerating growth would also require substantially higher levels of investments in infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on the rural areas where the vast majority of the Bangladeshi population lives.

While infrastructure in the rural areas has improved, particularly for water supply and roads, Bangladesh has a particularly high demand for expansion of rural electrification services. Factors such as remoteness, inadequate load demand and resource constraints for expanding the power infrastructure are major barriers to electrification in the rural areas.  These areas currently use kerosene and diesel for their lighting and electricity requirements.

At present, about 38% of the Bangladeshi population has access to electricity and per capita electricity consumption is about 133 kWh which is one of the lowest in the world.  Nearly 75% of the population is rural and only about 30% of the rural households have access to grid electricity. The current rate of expansion in electrification is only about 400,000 new households gaining access every year and at such rate it would take more than 40 years to reach all households. Rural electricity access rates have to increase dramatically to accomplish the Government’s stated goal of providing universal electricity access by 2020. Government has encouraged implementing off-grid renewable energy technologies, such as solar home systems (SHS) and micro-wind power systems in coastal areas, and mini-hydro projects in the mountainous regions as a priority.

Presently, three state-owned utilities under the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources are responsible for electricity development in the country. These are:

i) Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB), responsible for generation and transmission of power in the country and distribution in urban areas, except the area under Greater Dhaka,

ii) Dhaka Electric Supply Authority (DESA), responsible for distribution of electricity in the greater Dhaka area including the metropolitan city of Dhaka; and,

iii) Rural Electrification Board (REB), responsible for distribution of electricity in rural areas through a network of more than 60 Palli Bidyut Samitis (PBSs) or rural electricity cooperatives.

Government strategy emphasizes promoting off-grid options in areas that are unsuitable for grid expansion. It has made a good start by eliminating import duty on SHS in April 2000. The strategy emphasizes the pivotal role of well functioning rural systems for the Government’s off grid promotion strategy and endorses the approach to use well-functioning rural community based organizations (CBOs) to leverage grass-roots reach and establish credibility to improve electricity provision significantly.

The objective of this Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project is to contribute to sustainable development through the provision of renewable solar electricity to households not connected to the electricity grid and thereby reduce the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by displacing kerosene and diesel use for lighting and off-grid electricity generation.

The project will contribute to the sustainable development of Bangladesh with a particular emphasis on the rural population, which is generally poorer.  In addition to reducing GHG emissions, the project would have significant other social, economic and environmental benefits.  Bank’s involvement in supporting this project is therefore considered highly appropriate.

The project envisages installing 929,169 SHSs all across Bangladesh between 2007 and 2015.  The SHS will provide facilities for lighting, TV and radio and comprise of: (a) a Solar Module (10 to 120wp); (b) battery ( 47 Ah to 130 Ah); (c) Charge Controller; (d) fluorescent tube lights with special electronic ballasts; (e) mounting structure; (f) installation kit; and (g) cables and connecting devices. The capacity of individual SHS will vary according to consumer choice and demand. The cost of SHS would be recovered through monthly instalments over a period of up to 4 years which will be within the affordable capacity of the targeted consumers.  Upon full implementation in year 2015, the project activity will replace 20,075 kilo litres per annum of kerosene usage, equivalent to an emissions reduction of 48,380.75 tonnes CO2 per annum and 16,600,500 KWh/ year of electricity generation using diesel generators.

The project will be implemented by Grameen Shakti (GS) which develops, introduces and popularizes renewable energy technologies for sustainable energy solutions, particularly Solar PV systems, aiming to reduce poverty, improve living standards and protect the environment.  Over the last decade GS has installed about 77,000 SHS with combined capacities of 15.8 MW and more than 1,650 SHSs are installed each month.  It has also set up 120 offices for service delivery and performance monitoring, and has a research unit for improvement of the overall efficiency of the system and ancillaries. GS is currently serving more than 275,000 beneficiaries through its 120 offices spread over 58 districts of Bangladesh.

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology - with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.

The Best Companies Won’t Wait for the World to Change

by Laura Shenkar, Artemis Group, January 4th, 2008

Setting off in 2008, we must admit that getting out the message of climate change and the value of innovative technology to address it simply isn’t enough to bring about the sweeping new behaviors. We aren’t commuting to work by bus and coal continues to be a key source of energy throughout the US.  Even as lush states like North Carolina and Georgia struggle at the limits of their water supply, little innovative water technology or simply conservation has been applied.  If the world needs rapid change, then innovative go-to-market strategy must accompany the best innovative technologies.

Shai Agassi’s electric vehicle initiative, Project Better Place, provides one interesting example of the value of innovative strategy in bringing sustainable technologies to market.  Project Better Place does not develop its own electric vehicle technology.  It focuses upon the consumer rather than the car industry to gain rapid acceptance of a new electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure by addressing the “consumer contract for the vehicle.”

“The consumer’s contract for the EV must be the same – or better – than the consumer’s current contract for gas-powered cars,” Agassi explains. “We need to change the way consumers buy an EV so that it fits the current social contract we have with our cars, providing a normal car ownership experience even if the car has an electric drive train,”
 
At a small gathering last week, Agassi reviewed some of the details of that “consumer contract.”  Most people have their own car and seldom share it. Most cars transport cargo as well as four other individuals, cost about $20K and require a stop for refueling every 400 miles.  If an electric car provider can provide the same kind of “consumer contract,” then it could compete directly with the major car manufacturers and gain significant market share in a matter of months.

Winning widespread acceptance for new solutions requires that the technology solutions fit in with existing patterns of use.  The success of comprehensive commercial service packages for alternative energy like those offered by SunEdison are showing how established sustainable technologies such as solar power can gain wide acceptance rapidly when their offered in a format similar to that of their existing utilities.  SunEdison installs solar panels onsite at a commercial customer’s property and enters into long-term power contracts, typically for 20 years. Pricing is competitive with that of comparable energy costs.

Compelling green technologies for water abound as they do for energy and transport in the marketplace.  If they are to become part of our lives, innovative water technology needs to address today’s world and today’s practices.  Product by product, existing consumer and business markets have developed an inherent “service contract” with consumers.  For a certain price, each product provides a service with performance characteristics.  Cola costs about a dollar and comes in cans or bottles which last about a month or longer and can be served cooled.  Drinking water is free, but one pays taxes to utilities to support infrastructure and deliver drinkable water to your house.
 
In agriculture, for residential users as well as commercial and industrial sites, water is a service as well as a product.  It is a means to a different end—may it be production of food or microprocessors, drinking or hygiene.

Having worked with innovative technology for two decades, and having worked with innovative “green” technologies for several years, I am convinced that fitting new technology into the existing consumer contracts for the products we seek to replace is a requirement for success.
 
The world is made every day with our smallest actions and decision, and it can be remade with our actions.  As anyone who has ever been on a diet or any corporation implementing cost savings can tell you, it is the end-user who drives profound changes.

Laura Shenkar is Principal of The Artemis Project, a consultancy that specializes in supporting innovative technology companies achieve their potential in the global market.  As a member of the leadership team of three successful startups, she has learned how to employ the unique capabilities of a company’s technology and its team to target the best opportunities in an emerging market.  Laura is an active member of several national and international water industry associations and participates in governmental water management initiatives as well as venture investment conferences. This combination of activities enables her to share with The Artemis Project clients a wide view of emerging opportunities and new product trends.  Ms. Shenkar can be reached at laura@theartemisfund.com.

by Dave Garland, Hansen PSC, Inc. , January 4th, 2008

As the housing market evolves, it is inevitable that many developers and homebuilders will be caught in the undertow of the downward cycle.  To make matters worse, the maze of community, county, and state regulations is getting longer and more confusing for land owners, engineers, architects and developers.  In fact, entitlement and regulatory issues, driven by multiple sources of influence, are one of the largest concerns within the development and home building industry today.   Understanding these forces and preparing for their impact can enhance project appeal, add revenue opportunities, and favorably position you and your clients for future prosperity.

Market Forces:

Force #1 - Organized Activism: Citizens who have historically acceded to the decisions of local and regional regulatory officials now seemingly challenge them at every turn.  Organized campaigns crafted by neighborhood or special interest groups can force officials to risk their office on every vote, no matter how reasonable a development application may be.  From angry neighbors to prepared activists, groups opposed to developments are frequently issuing press releases, retaining attorneys and raising money for lengthy court battles.  Even national publications are showcasing articles on how to best organize to fight developers. 

Force #2  - Demographics: By 2040, America’s population is projected to increase by an additional 83 million people.  Concentration of this growth is expected to center on resource-constrained metropolitan areas; adding to existing traffic and infrastructure woes.  According to the Brookings institution, by 2030 nearly half the buildings in the U.S. will have been built after the year 2000, with residential development commanding two-third’s of this expansion.

Force #3 - Zoning & Code Updates: To combat the possible consequences of growth, regulatory agencies have instituted urban growth boundaries, comprehensive planning campaigns, and urged the use of “smart growth” initiatives.  While growth management practices are nothing new, the degree by which land use regulation is being implemented is unprecedented in the United States.  Take Loudoun, Virginia, the nation’s fastest-growing county in the last five years as an example.  Its population tripled in 15 years to a quarter million residents constraining area resources, and decreasing air quality and the affordability of homes.  Land use experts have argued that there is one solution to these challenges: heavy regulation.  Regulators now call for smart growth zoning coupled with dense, mixed use developments to preserve open space, constrain urban sprawl and meet the area’s surging housing demand.  These same responses are being proposed in communities throughout the country.  

Force #4 - Affordable Housing: Additional housing demand has and will continue to be met with new stipulations and regulations that call for affordability components.  In fact, most “smart growth” planning reforms adopt the principle of housing affordability and diversity.   The premise of the affordability problem is that not enough low-cost housing exists, particularly in the shadow of the recent housing boom.  The policy response in most states has been to subsidize rental housing development, or mandate percentages of for-sale units be sold below market rates.  The net affect is that the costs of affordable housing requirements are borne by the land owner, developer, builder or some combination thereof. 

Force #5 - Environmental Awareness:  Growing environmental awareness is demanding greater due diligence and analysis of a project’s potential impact on the surrounding infrastructure and ecosystem.  Municipalities are expanding their requirements for studies of biological, cultural, anthropological, and specie history specific to your properties.  National policies also poised to directly influence design.  Indeed, environmental awareness, environmentally sustainable development trends, and “green” practices have dominated the recent trade headlines.  From complying with EPA guidelines to applying for and LEED certification standards, there is an underlying, unspoken assumption that we are moving from: ‘Every developable structure could have a green component.’  To, ‘Every structure should incorporate sustainable practices in its design.’

Regulation’s Impact:

As the above forces converge, increased regulations to meet social and environmental demands will increase both costs and time frames for development approvals in the planning and entitlement phases.  From a valuation standpoint, any additional regulatory and/or social, economic or environmental constraint can be a multiplier of time and risk.  More importantly, requirements for affordable housing, development impact fees, higher permit fees, special impact fees and the like are often based on the assumption that developers have the resources necessary to consistently meet evolving policy. 

In reality, policy forces developers to continually reinvent mechanisms by which to cut costs.  In the past, these costs could come out of the underlying price of land, or through increased densities, and not be passed on to the end customer in the form of heightened asset prices.  Unfortunately, speculation in raw land by hedge funds, foreign investment, institutional investment, and players with little previous development experience has pushed land values into the stratosphere   thereby placing serious constraints on future development profitability through added competition.

New Opportunities:

There is a flip-side to that coin: if there is one thing that added regulation gives us besides longer entitlement time frames, it is uncertainty in receiving intended approvals.  Where there is uncertainty in an economy, there is a chance for arbitrage and opportunity.

While the challenge for receiving entitlements will increase, so too will the rewards.  Where it once took mere months to receive approvals for a project, it might take a year or two.  The difficulty for receiving entitlements will be commensurate with the added value of the property upon approvals.  The trend will be that value will increase significantly for paper approvals.  This means that by obtaining tentative maps, planning commission approval, city approvals, or the equivalent (even without necessary building permits), the value of land will be substantially increased, and not just due to land appreciation over time.  Now, more than ever before, the ideas and expertise of development consultants are critical to differentiating one project from the next and adding necessary economic value for a development.

Paper value of land will constitute a significant portion of the estimated $25 trillion  land grab over the next 30 years.  Strategies for obtaining approvals, and thus the increased land value, will be of utmost importance.  Outsourcing of the entitlement process is a growing trend throughout regulation heavy states such as California, Oregon and New York.  This niche opportunity will only expand in other states as development constraints mount and provide opportunities for consultants such as civil engineers and land planners. 

As the conflicting needs of the political, social, demographic, economic and environmental influences mount, there is bound to be uncertainty and volatility.  For those who know how to navigate these waters and address the forces of volatility, a wellspring of opportunity awaits.

References: 

Robert Charles Lesser & Co. Housing Predictions, February 2007

Davenport, Coral. “In a fast-growing county, sprawl teaches hard lessons,” The Christian Science Monitor. 1/23/06.

Staley, Sam. And Gilroy, Leonard, C., “Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from

Statewide Planning Laws”, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 287, Dec. 2001.

Roney, Maya. “Overseas Investors Still Find US Property Hot,” Business Week.com, Feb. 14, 2007

“Builders on the Block,” The Economist, 3/31/07.

Kaihla, Paul. “The $25 Trillion Land Grab,” Business 2.0 Magazine, Nov. 1, 2005.

Dave Garland is Vice President of Development of Hansen PSC, Inc. a strategic investment and land development firm located in Menlo Park, CA.  Hansen PSC, Inc. strives to locate commercial and residential land throughout America on which to create socially respectable and environmentally friendly development projects.  Mr. Garland can be reached at dgarland@hansenpsc.com.