ITSSD Journal on Energy Security

SMART Grid Socialism: Governments to Decide When and Where Regulated Utilities Will Deliver Power to Ensure That it Meets 'The Highest Social Purpose'

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:52:00 +0000

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/03/05/lawrence-solomon-don%E2%80%99t-count-on-constant-electricity-under-renewable-energy-says-uk-electricity-ceo/

Lawrence Solomon: Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO

FP Comment

By Lawrence Solomon

Lawrence Solomon March 5, 2011 – 10:20 am
Wind power will require lifestyle change

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes.

Smart grids are being developed by utilities worldwide to allow the government to control electricity use in the home, down to the individual appliance. Smart grids would monitor the consumption of each appliance and be capable of turning them off if the power is needed elsewhere.

Holliday’s startling comments on BBC Radio 4 were reported by The Daily Telegraph.
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and the author of The Deniers. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

CaMoron Nixes Third Heathrow Runway in Nod to Climate Change-Obsessed Greenies

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:12:00 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/earth/02runway.html?_r=1

Britain Curbing Airport Growth to Aid Climate

By Elizabeth Rosenthal

July 1, 2010

In a bold if lonely environmental stand, Britain’s coalition government has set out to curb the growth of what has been called “binge flying” by refusing to build new runways around London to accommodate more planes.

Citing the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, Prime Minister David Cameron, a Conservative, abruptly canceled longstanding plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport in May, just days after his election; he said he would also refuse to approve new runways at Gatwick and Stansted, London’s second-string airports.

The government decided that enabling more flying was incompatible with Britain’s oft-stated goal of curbing emissions. Britons have become accustomed to easy, frequent flying — jetting off to weekend homes in Spain and bachelor parties in Prague — as England has become a hub for low-cost airlines. The country’s 2008 Climate Change Actrequires it to reduce emissions by at least 34 percent by 2020 from levels reached in 1990.

“The emissions were a significant factor” in the decision to cancel the runway-building plans, Teresa Villiers, Britain’s minister of state for transport, said in an interview. “The 220,000 or so flights that might well come with a third runway would make it difficult to meet the targets we’d set for ourselves.” She said that local environmental concerns like noise and pollution around Heathrow also weighed into the decision.

Britain is bucking a global trend. Across North America, Asia and Europe, cities are building new runways or expanding terminals to handle projected growth in air travel and air freight in the hope of remaining competitive.

That growth in traffic has been damped but not halted by hard economic times, and in the current global recession, business concerns have generally prevailed over worries about climate change. In the United States, Chicago-O’Hare, Seattle-Tacoma and Washington-Dulles all opened new runways in 2008.

On Tuesday, Kennedy International Airport in New York reopened its Bay Runway — one of four, and the airport’s longest — after a four-month, $376 million renovation that included the creation of two new taxiways to speed plane movements between runways and terminals.

Airport expansion plans have sometimes been modified or canceled because of concerns about noise or ground-level pollution. But Peder Jensen, a transportation specialist at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, said that as far as he knew, Britain “is the only country that had made a conscious decision based on climate considerations.”

Heathrow, one of the world’s busiest airports and a major connection point for destinations in Europe, South Asia and the Middle East, is already notorious for its flight delays and endless lines. It is the only airport of its size with just two runways; Paris-Charles de Gaulle has four and O’Hare has seven.

So even though the Conservative Party had been expressing growing reservations about the planned expansion since 2008, many businessmen were shocked when Mr. Cameron canceled the plan after coming to power in a coalition with Liberal Democrats.

“This is a new government that claimed to be business friendly, but their first move was to eliminate one of the best growth opportunities for London and the U.K. and British companies,” said Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association. “We’ve run into a shortsighted political decision that will have terrible economic consequences.”

The British government counters that the economic effects of scrapping the third runway are “unclear” while the environmental costs of adding one are unacceptably high. Ms. Villiers said that a high-speed rail network intended to replace short-haul flights would be a better way to address the airport’s congestion than adding a runway.

“We recognized that just putting more flights and more passengers into the skies over southeast England wasn’t worth the environmental costs we’re paying,” she said. “We decided to make Heathrow better rather than bigger.”

Although it is often said that emissions from air travel account for 2 to 3 percent of global emissions, the proportion is higher in many developed countries: emissions from aviation are growing faster there than those from nearly any other sector.

The British government has calculated that aviation emissions accounted for just 6 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2006. But it concluded in a report that aviation could contribute up to a quarter of those emissions by 2030.

In the United States, the number of general aviation hours is forecast to grow an average of 1.8 percent a year, and to be 60 percent greater by 2025 than it is now, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. While airlines have worked hard to improve airplane efficiency, those efforts are dwarfed by the upward trend in flying.

Citizens’ groups in communities near Heathrow fought hard for nearly a decade against the airport’s runway expansion, complaining about noise and nitrous oxide pollution. As climate change became a more potent political issue in Britain several years ago, environmental groups with broader concerns jumped into the fray, camping out at Heathrow and occupying runways at smaller airports, shutting them down for hours.

“If you were a politician, how you felt about the third runway became a test of your commitment to dealing with climate change,” said Ben Stewart, communications director for Greenpeace U.K.

The temptation to expand airports is great for cities in search of new business and tourism. Airports in Europe are now mostly run by private companies, and for them, the more traffic, the more profit.

Some critics say the British government’s principled stand is pointless because airlines and travelers will respond not by forgoing air travel but by flying through a different airport. Instead of emissions being reduced, the critics say, they will simply be transferred to places like Barajas Airport in Madrid or Frankfurt International Airport, which have recently been expanded.

“My personal opinion is that the decision concerning Heathrow’s third runway was highly politicized and outpaced the science of what that runway might or might not do in terms of emissions,” said Christopher Oswald, a vice president of Airports Council International, an industry group. He suggested that a third runway might actually reduce emissions above Heathrow, because with less congestion, planes would spend less time idling on runways or circling in holding patterns.

But Dr. Jensen of the European Environment Agency said that building roads or runways generated more traffic in the long term because greater convenience draws people to a route.

Leo Murray, a spokesman for Plane Stupid, an environmental group that has fought new runways, called the British government’s decision “a turning point for aviation” although he added, “It is uncomfortable to have the coup de grace delivered by the Conservative government.”

Will Obama Allow Foolish US-Based Multinational CEOs to Trade Our Dependency on Gulf Oil for Our Dependency on Chinese-Made Windmills & Solar Panels?

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:15:00 +0000

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35163844/ns/business-the_new_york_times/

China leads global race to make clean energy: Now the world's largest maker of wind turbines, solar panels

As China takes the lead on wind turbines, above, and solar panels, President Barack Obama is calling for American industry to step up.

By Keith Bradsher

New York Times

January 30, 2010

TIANJIN, China - China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate the global manufacture of renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

“Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.

President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that the United States was falling behind other countries, especially China, on energy. “I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders — and I know you don’t either,” he told Congress.

Executives expect China to prevail

The United States and other countries are offering incentives to develop their own renewable energy industries, and Mr. Obama called for redoubling American efforts. Yet many Western and Chinese executives expect China to prevail in the energy-technology race.

Multinational corporations are responding to the rapid growth of China’s market by building big, state-of-the-art factories in China. Vestas of Denmark has just erected the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing complex here in northeastern China, and transferred the technology to build the latest electronic controls and generators.

“You have to move fast with the market,” said Jens Tommerup, the president of Vestas China. “Nobody has ever seen such fast development in a wind market.”

Renewable energy industries here are adding jobs rapidly, reaching 1.12 million in 2008 and climbing by 100,000 a year, according to the government-backed Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association.

Yet renewable energy may be doing more for China’s economy than for the environment. Total power generation in China is on track to pass the United States in 2012 — and most of the added capacity will still be from coal.

Largest market for equipment

China intends for wind, solar and biomass energy to represent 8 percent of its electricity generation capacity by 2020. That compares with less than 4 percent now in China and the United States. Coal will still represent two-thirds of China’s capacity in 2020, and nuclear and hydropower most of the rest.

As China seeks to dominate energy-equipment exports, it has the advantage of being the world’s largest market for power equipment. The government spends heavily to upgrade the electricity grid, committing $45 billion in 2009 alone. State-owned banks provide generous financing.

China’s top leaders are intensely focused on energy policy: on Wednesday, the government announced the creation of a National Energy Commission composed of cabinet ministers as a “superministry” led by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself.

Regulators have set mandates for power generation companies to use more renewable energy. Generous subsidies for consumers to install their own solar panels or solar water heaters have produced flurries of activity on rooftops across China.

China’s biggest advantage may be its domestic demand for electricity, rising 15 percent a year. To meet demand in the coming decade, according to statistics from the International Energy Agency, China will need to add nearly nine times as much electricity generation capacity as the United States will.

So while Americans are used to thinking of themselves as having the world’s largest market in many industries, China’s market for power equipment dwarfs that of the United States, even though the American market is more mature. That means Chinese producers enjoy enormous efficiencies from large-scale production.

In the United States, power companies frequently face a choice between buying renewable energy equipment or continuing to operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants that have already been built and paid for. In China, power companies have to buy lots of new equipment anyway, and alternative energy, particularly wind and nuclear, is increasingly priced competitively.

Interest rates as low as 2 percent for bank loans — the result of a savings rate of 40 percent and a government policy of steering loans to renewable energy — have also made a big difference.

As in many other industries, China’s low labor costs are an advantage in energy. Although Chinese wages have risen sharply in the last five years, Vestas still pays assembly line workers here only $4,100 a year.

China’s commitment to renewable energy is expensive. Although costs are falling steeply through mass production, wind energy is still 20 to 40 percent more expensive than coal-fired power. Solar power is still at least twice as expensive as coal.

The Chinese government charges a renewable energy fee to all electricity users. The fee increases residential electricity bills by 0.25 percent to 0.4 percent. For industrial users of electricity, the fee doubled in November to roughly 0.8 percent of the electricity bill.

The fee revenue goes to companies that operate the electricity grid, to make up the cost difference between renewable energy and coal-fired power.

Renewable energy fees are not yet high enough to affect China’s competitiveness even in energy-intensive industries, said the chairman of a Chinese industrial company, who asked not to be identified because of the political sensitivity of electricity rates in China.

High transmission losses

Grid operators are unhappy. They are reimbursed for the extra cost of buying renewable energy instead of coal-fired power, but not for the formidable cost of building power lines to wind turbines and other renewable energy producers, many of them in remote, windswept areas. Transmission losses are high for sending power over long distances to cities, and nearly a third of China’s wind turbines are not yet connected to the national grid.

Most of these turbines were built only in the last year, however, and grid construction has not caught up. Under legislation passed by the Chinese legislature on Dec. 26, a grid operator that does not connect a renewable energy operation to the grid must pay that operation twice the value of the electricity that cannot be distributed.

With prices tumbling, China’s wind and solar industries are increasingly looking to sell equipment abroad — and facing complaints by Western companies that they have unfair advantages. When a Chinese company reached a deal in November to supply turbines for a big wind farm in Texas, there were calls in Congress to halt federal spending on imported equipment.

“Every country, including the United States and in Europe, wants a low cost of renewable energy,” said Ma Lingjuan, deputy managing director of China’s renewable energy association. “Now China has reached that level, but it gets criticized by the rest of the world.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/global-companies-forced-move-china

Global companies 'forced' to move to China

By Johan van Slooten

Radio Netherlands Worldwide

21 January 2010

International companies doing business in China say they are being forced to relocate there. Finnish/Dutch ship engine manufacturer Wärtsilä has given in to Chinese pressure and decided to move its production facilities out of the Netherlands.

Listen to a Newsline interview with EVO spokesman Godfried Smit

The move means hundreds of job losses in Wärtsilä’s three Dutch factories. 'No other option' [?????]

Wärtsilä’s Dutch CEO Fred van Beers said earlier this week that the Chinese had left his company with no other option: “They only want to use local manufacturers these days. So if we don’t move to China, they won’t be using us anymore. It’s a tough decision, especially for our employees here in the Netherlands”.

[THIS IS THE TYPICAL GREEDY & FOOLISH MULTINATIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE SUITE THINKING, EMBRACED BY EVEN MORE FOOLISH EUROPEAN BUREAUCRATIC BUY-IN, THAT HAS INCREASINGLY RENDERED THE EUROPEANS ALMOST ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON RUSSIAN OIL & GAS. U.S. MULTINATIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE SUITES HAVE BEEN JUST AS FOOLISH & GREEDY WHICH HAS MADE THE U.S. MORE VULNERABLE TO NOT ONLY MIDDLE EASTERN OIL & GAS DEPENDENCY, BUT ALSO CHINESE WINDMILL & SOLAR PANEL DEPENDENCY. WHEN WILL THIS GREEDINESS & FOOLISHNESS END???]

Beijing’s decision that Chinese companies must use only locally produced materials has angered Dutch exporting companies, represented by the EVO organisation. Its spokesman Godfried Smit says China is violating international rules set by the World Trade Organisation (WTO):

“The rules for international trade are clearly spelt out in the WTO hand book. These practices clearly don’t meet the standards set by the WTO”.

Pressure

Mr Smit says this is the reason why the Chinese government is not openly forcing companies to move to China. However, local and regional authorities do press international manufacturers into relocating, EVO claims.

“But it’s difficult to detect, as most companies that have to deal with this kind of pressure rarely speak out. If they do, they fear their access to the Chinese market will be more difficult,” Mr Smit says.

General Motors

Wärtsilä is not the only international company that has to deal with this pressure. General Motors was also forced to move part of its construction capacity to China after it unveiled plans to expand its exports to the region.

'EU should take action'

EVO wants the EU to take action against China on this issue, says Mr Smit. “The EU Commission has a huge influence on the global economy and if it says China is not in line with WTO legislation, China will hopefully listen. The Chinese should also be aware that this might be harmful to themselves. They’ve overcome the image of having an economy that only produces substandard, counterfeited stuff, and they shouldn’t want another negative image”.

China is not the only country putting up trade barriers against the rest of the world - the US and EU have done likewise. “But there’s a difference”, says Mr Smit, “as the EU and US trade barriers are normally in line with WTO guidelines”.

[THIS IS PURE HOGWASH! - THE EU TECHNICAL NON-TARIFF ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH & SAFETY (EHS)/(SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-RELATED) TRADE BARRIERS BASED ON EUROPE'S ROMAN CIVIL LAW & HAZARD-BASED PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE HAVE LONG VIOLATED WTO RULES]

US protectionism

However, in early 2009, the US government came under fire when it unveiled an economic rescue package which stipulated that American investors should use only US-made iron, steel and manufactured goods in projects funded by the package.

US President Barack Obama changed the rules after criticism by the WTO.

Dutch reaction

On Thursday, Dutch deputy minister of economic affairs Frank Heemskerk asked the WTO to take action. “This clearly violates international trade laws. If China is guilty of protectionism, the WTO should act”, he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[IT IS QUITE DISTURBING THAT THE ITSSD AND OTHER INFORMED PROFESSIONALS HAD PREVIOUSLY PREDICTED THIS OUTCOME FIVE YEARS AGO IN ITS GLOBALLY RECOGNIZED ARTICLE APPEARING IN THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, GREEDY & FOOLISH MULTINATIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVES, BELIEVING THEY KNEW BETTER, IGNORED THESE CLEAR WARNINGS, AND INCOMPETENT AND FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED (LOBBIED) CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES MADE IT EVEN EASIER TO TRANSFER HIGHLY SENSITIVE, PROPRIETARY AND COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES TO CHINESE COMPANIES, AND BY EXTENSION, CHINESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE NOW USING SUCH TECHNOLOGIES AGAINST U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. ALSO, THESE COMPANIES HAVE GIVEN UP THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF U.S. JOBS AND MANUFACTURING EXPERTISE. SHAME ON THE U.S. CEOS FOR PURSUING THIS APPROACH; AND SHAME ON THE U.S. CONGRESS FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN.]

Excerpted from, Lawrence A. Kogan, Rediscovering the Value of Intellectual Property Rights: How Brazil's Recognition and Protection of Foreign IPRs Can Stimulate Domestic Innovation and Generate Economic Growth, IJED, Vol. 8 No. 1-2 at pp. 127-128, and accompanying endnotes. http://www.spaef.com/article.php?id=970 ; www.itssd.org/White%20Papers/ijed-8-1-2-kogan.pdf

China

China has employed a perceptibly more attractive multi-level strategy that has enabled it to progress along the economic ladder much more rapidly than its industrial predecessors.505 As a result, it has become, for the moment, the 'factory of the world', as well as a future aspiring technology leader.506 China‘s strategy differs markedly from Japan‘s strategy insofar as, it was necessitated by a simultaneous need for development, skilled labor, technology, and investment.507 Although China has utilized practically every device in the opportunist‘s toolbox,508 its conduct has remained more palatable to developed nation industries. Apparently, China has learned to frame its innovation needs in terms acceptable to the marketplace.509 510 511 China has largely premised its model of innovation and development on the mechanism of joint venture-based investment.

Typically, a foreign investor contributes intellectual property, including manufacturing process know-how and overseas distribution in exchange for a Chinese company‘s contribution of local manufacturing plant and equipment plus an unlimited supply of low-wage skilled labor. Incremental technology improvements and any new patents, trademarks and copyrights inure to the benefit of the new enterprise. Joint venture-based products are usually subject to export and substantially banned from the domestic Chinese market, which is largely reserved for Chinese state-owned or private enterprises.512 513 514 The Chinese government has documented the massive extent of foreign technology transfer that has already occurred. In 2001 alone, the government approved 240,000 joint venture technology transfer contracts, worth approximately $10 billion, reflecting a 23% increase from the prior year (2000).515

In addition to recognizing how it could capitalize on its seemingly endless supply of cheap labor, China has also sought to develop indigenous human capital (labor skills) which it deems essential to innovation. The Chinese government obviously knows that intellectual property-based innovation is the key to technological advancement. In this regard, China has employed a global ‘charm offensive’ that has sought to “persuade, lure and sometimes force foreign corporations to locate their most advanced research and developm ent facilities in China”. It has also sent its students abroad to advanced western universities to become educated, with the expectation that they will eventually return.516

In order to keep its factories running and its labor pool content China has sought to control the mass wholesalers and retailers upon which most global end-use consumers depend for their daily purchases. To accomplish this, however, China has had to develop the ability to efficiently: 1) import large quantities of raw materials; 2) build and operate large manufacturing and processing facilities that convert those materials into useable intermediate and/or finished goods; and 3) export large quantities of finished products to consumers. This has required that it quickly learn all about global procurement and distribution systems. Consequently, when a western company decides to move its R & D operations to China to capitalize on China‘s relatively cheap labor and very well educated knowledge pool, it is unwittingly transferring its next generation of knowledge and innovations there,517 and helping China to become an independent innovative as well as manufacturing force. 518 519 520

Corresponding Endnotes:

505 “China is using its unprecedented access to so m e of the world‘s most advanced technology as a means of leapfrogging into the modern industrial age. China has been able to use this technology to upgrade its industries and to become globally competitive in a short span of time… [Through the] process of absorbing [foreign] technology and using it to compete with the technology‘s original owners and creators…China‘s goal is to become competitive and to dominate all industries. While China already dominates in some low-technology sectors, China‘s goal is to dominate not only in low-technology sectors, but also in high-technology sectors. Unlike Japan or Korea, China does not intend to abandon lower-level technology sectors as it moves up the technology ladder.” See Counterfeiting and China‘s Economic Development, Written Testimony of Professor Daniel C.K. Chow, at p. 3, Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Intellectual Property Rights Issues and Imported Counterfeit Goods (June 7-8, 2006).

506 “With its joint venture model, the Chinese government has moved its industrial infrastructure from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first century in less than two decades. In the process, China is getting the kno w ledge and capacity it needs to become the world’s manufacturing center.” See Pat Choate, HOT PROPERTY: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization, at p. 172.

507 “China needs jobs. To get those jobs, China needs foreign technology. To get the foreign technology, China needs foreign investment. To get the foreign investment, the Chinese government has introduced a host of national development initiatives. Each is built on a grand four-part long-term development strategy.” Ibid., at p. 170.

508 “For those companies that do decide to do business in China, the unfortunate reality is that they all must expect intellectual problems eventually. The problem may originate from suppliers or other Chinese manufacturer. It may come from former employees. It may even come from state-sponsored reverse-engineering programs. In March [2006], China’s railway ministry proudly announced two new, high -speed railway lines. Government officials announced that the new railways would use only Chinese technology. How did China achieve this Great Leap Forward in transportation technology? Railroad minister Liu Zhijun explained it to the Chinese press: ‘Our technology is a re-innovation on the basis of assimilating advanced technologies of foreign countries.‘ Re-innovation’, whether by the state or by other local businesses, is a fact of life in today’s China’” (emphasis added). See Testimony of the Honorable Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Electronic Industries Alliance, before the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission Hearing on China‘s Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and the Dangers of the Movement of Counterfeited and Pirated Goods into the United States at p. 4 (June 7 - 8, 2006).

509 “Just like the United States and Japan before it, China is using all the usual means – licensing, theft, piracy, intimidation, spies, and cooperation – to get the technology it needs. China has also adopted a system of joint venture, an old and established tool for securing foreign intellectual property, and has elevated it to an art form. With joint ventures, China reduces its need to steal or expropriate foreign intellectual property because foreign corporations share it as a condition of doing business there… In 2002, economists at Lehman Brothers… projected that China would have the world ‘s second largest economy by 2030. But that projection will not be realized unless China can continue to: a. [G]et the basic foreign technology; b. [C]reate the capacity to develop proprietary technology domestically; and c. [C]ontrol these core technologies world wide.” Ibid., at pp. 170 and 172.

510 “For decades China has been targeting Western technologies, initially seeking military and other secrets, but more recently concentrating much of its effort on technologies and intellectual property designed to drive its rapidly expanding economy…Thousands of American companies are among those attracted b y China’s cheap labor and growing market for consumer goods. Based on population, China’s market is three times larger than the European Union and four times the size of the United States. It economy is growing at an average of 8 percent a year. Many of the products are particularly vulnerable to reverse engineering, design infringement, and counterfeiting due to inadequate protections in China of intellectual property rights… It has been said that the right to counterfeit goods is engrained in China’s culture. Former premier Deng Xiaoping promoted the philosophy of: ‘Let foreign things serve China.’ This perspective continues today and China generally views counterfeiting and other violations of intellectual property not as a serious offense, but as a major source of income, taxes, and employment.” See The Developing U.S.-China Relationship: Analysis of China’s Weak Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Enforcement, Written Testimony of Dr. Neil C. Livingstone, at pp. 1-2, Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Intellectual Property Rights Issues and Imported Counterfeit Goods (June 7-8, 2006).

511 “China is now our third -largest trading partner. Last year American firms exported $42 billion in goods and services to China, and exports rose 40% in the first quarter of this year, with high-tech products such as medical and scientific equipment and semiconductors among the fastest-rising major products… We have seen some small indications that the Chinese government is taking intellectual property more seriously. There has been progress – a very tiny amount – but not nearly enough. The truth is that China has no strong tradition of protecting intellectual property rights. Until it does, the abundant rewards of trade with China will always be tempered by equally abundant risks. The concerted effort begun by the Chinese government in recent months to encourage homegrown innovation and lessen the country‘s economic development reliance on imported technology is in some ways a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is encouraging that the government wants China to develop its own commercial technologies, because the most effective way to foster true enforcement of IPR protection is for domestic entrepreneurs and small businesses to have a real stake in the system. It is impossible for someone to take enforcement seriously if they have nothing of their own to protect. Encouraging innovation rather than mandating technology and standards is a definite step in the right direction of lowering non-tariff trade barriers… As a new market and an ever more important trading partner, China holds great promise. But there are still many challenges that U.S. companies face in doing business there. Sometimes the opportunities outweigh the risks; other times, firms run into serious trouble in China. In every case, the Chinese market will never meet its full potential until it is governed by a sound and transparent legal system, particularly in terms of intellectual property rights.” See Testimony of the Honorable Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Electronic Industries Alliance, before the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission Hearing on China’s Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and the Dangers of the Movement o f Counterfeited and Pirated Goods into the United States supra, at pp. 1 and 4.

512 “The foreign investor puts up the capital, patents, copyrights, trademarks, know-how, and overseas distribution. In most circumstances, the local Chinese partner keeps half the equity in the new enterprise. Any improvements in technology and any new patents, trademarks, or copyrights developed in China by the joint venture belong to the new enterprise. In exchange, China contributes an unlimited supply of low-wage, competent, compliant workers. The foreign corporations are allowed to serve their markets from Chinese-based factories that operate under the most limited public regulation of labor, production, pollution, and health and safety standards. Products from these ventures are often banned in China, leaving that market to state or locally-owned enterprises. Despite China’s invitation to foreign companies to come and invest, the Chinese government has reserved entire sectors of its economy for state-owned enterprises. Other sectors belong to China’s private entrepreneurs. Foreign investors can participate in the rest on terms that China dictates. See Pat Choate, HOT PROPERTY: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization, at p. 178. Foreign corporations also use local managers and engineers to operate their factories, teach the Chinese how to apply their technology, and follow the government’s economic dictates. Through this, China gains know-how quickly.” Ibid., at p. 172. “…As foreign companies become increasingly dependent on Chinese manufacturing for their worldwide production, they will come under correspondingly more pressure to make available and then share ownership of their foreign distribution systems. Eventually, just as the Japanese and Koreans did, the Chinese will establish brand trademarks that become known worldwide, which they will sell through these joint distribution networks. Finally, the Chinese, just like the Japanese before them, will no longer need foreign corporations or their networks.” Ibid., at p. 183.

513 “…[T]he [Electronic Industries Alliance] EIA published in April [2006] a best practices guide entitled Protecting Intellectual Property Rights in China and sent it to senior executives at each of our nearly 1,300 member companies. The guide was a collaboration between EIA and the China Alliance, which is a partnership of four North American law firms…with a collective team of legal experts on China… I think the most important message of the guide… is that in many ways there are no markets in China” (italicized emphasis in original) (boldface emphasis added). See Testimony of the Honorable Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Electronic Industries Alliance, before the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission Hearing on China’s Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and the Dangers of the Movement of Counterfeited and Pirated Goods into the United States at pp. 3 -4, supra.

514 Some who have studied the lack of success experienced by large U.S. law firms in China have labeled the promise of Chinese market share ‘fool’s gold’. See, e.g.,: Jason Lohr, Gold Mountain or Fool’s Gold?, Asia Business Law (4/4/06), at: (http://asiabizlaw.blogspot.com/2006/04/gold-mountain-or-foolsgold.html ); Kelly Schmitt, Law Firms Pressured to Serve China on the Cheap, The Recorder (12/14/05), at:
(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1134468312985 ).

515 See Pat Choate, HOT PROPERTY: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization,, at p. 174.

516 “China offers more than an enormous pool of cheap labor light manufacturing. It has a large pool of engineers and technicians available for more advanced work, many educated in the United States. The Chinese Academy of Engineering reports that as of the late 1990‘s China had more than 2.1 million trained engineers, including 600,000 senior-level people. This is a significant reservoir of technical talent. Most of these engineers are available at roughly 10 percent of the salaries of their American, Japanese, or European counterparts.” Ibid., at p. 173.

517 “Angela Merkel, German chancellor, will…urge China to drop rules that force foreign companies to transfer proprietary technologies and designs to Chinese competitors. These ‘forced transfers’ top a list of complaints that German business has asked Ms. Merkel to raise with Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, during her first visit to Beijing. The complaints, to be published today [May 22, 2006] by BDI, the industry federation, include the difficulties foreign companies face in obtaining redress before Chinese courts in intellectual property infringement cases.” See Bertrand Benoit, Merkel To Grill China On ‘Forced Transfers’, Financial Times (5 /22/06) at p.1.

518 See Pat Choate, HOT PROPERTY: The Stealing of Ideas in an Age of Globalization,, at pp. 171-172. “China is developing its capacity to import raw materials and export finished goods. COSCO, the Chinese state-owned shipping company is now working with port authorities on both the west and east coasts of the United States to expand their capacity to handle far greater imports and exports with China. In 2002…COSCO opened a route to Boston. Within one year, the volume of goods shipped from the Boston port to Asia doubled, while the import volume from Asia to Boston increased fourfold. Equally significant, China has replaced the United States as the transport manager for the Panama Canal. The governments of Panama and China have had extensive negotiations on the construction of new locks for the canal, sufficient to carry the giant cargo ships that China envisions for the future. China is ensuring that it w ill be able to get the world’s raw materials to its factories and its finished goods to world markets. China will eventually try to control the principal retail outlets that market its products in other nations. China’s growing monopoly on the manufacture of goods that foreign retailers sell provides the business advantage required in such negotiations and takeovers. Viewed from China’s perspective, as the products it makes come to dominate U.S. and other markets, why should not the Chinese share in the profits made by Wal-Mart, Kmart, JCPenney, and other retailers that sell its good, or even take them all if it can? This is the way capitalism works.” Ibid.

519 There is actual anecdotal evidence that China’s domestic propaganda machine promotes industrial stealth of foreign technologies by warning local industries that the Chinese government’s protection of foreign intellectual property rights, if permitted, would lead to foreign company monopolies in China. “On one of my trips to China, I had the chance to sit in on a speech made by a local Qingdao official of the State Intellectual Property Office. Since he was speaking to an auditorium of local businessmen and Chinese government officials, perhaps, I should have expected the candor with which he spoke, but my jaw dropped when I heard off-message rhetoric that enforcement of trademark, patent and copyright laws could lead to monopolies by foreign multinationals, that different economic development levels call for different standards of enforcement, and that better enforcement could not come at the expense of domestic innovators. That is not the language we hear from Vice Minister Wu Yi and other Beijing officials working to improve China’s record.” See Testimony of the Honorable Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Electronic Industries Alliance, before the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission Hearing on China’s Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and the Dangers of the Movement of Counterfeited and Pirated Goods into the United States at p. 5. supra.

520 Some experts believe that China’s IPR violation conundrum is caused not by the attitude of Chinese officials, but rather by limitations on state capacity. ―It is m y considered opinion that the majority of Beijing‘s elite decision makers genuinely believes in the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, even if it is for nationalistic or other self-interested reasons (i.e., economic growth, the strategic payoffs form a vibrant innovative – and protected – knowledge base, etc.). Insofar as this problem persists, much of the reason is due to limitations on state capacity: China’s top leadership can only expend the necessary resources to sustain two or three major campaigns over the long term. That explains the paradox of why China can regulate the most intimate behavior of 1.3 billion people through its stringent population control policy but cannot crackdown in a sustained manner on a problem as seemingly straightforward and obvious as copyright piracy” (emphasis added). See Andrew C. Mertha, Testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on Intellectual Property Rights Issues and Imported Counterfeited Goods (June 8, 2006), at p. 1.

Hazard & Correlation-Based (Precautionary Principle-Based) Global Warming is a Falling Doctrine

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:47:00 +0000

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Global-warming-is-a-falling-doctrine-8759793-81328022.html

Global Warming is a Falling Doctrine

By: Cal Thomas

Examiner

January 14, 2010

PORSTEWART, NORTHERN IRELAND - A familiar philosophical question goes like this: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

[See Of Great Expectations and Climate Change Chicanery: Even Charles Dickens Has Been Outdone!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security (Jan. 27, 2009) at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2009/01/of-great-expectations-and-climate.html ].

Here's another: If a doctrine falls, will enough believers admit they were wrong and withdraw support for policies associated with it?

The "doctrine" of global warming, now euphemistically called "climate change," suffered a severe blow last week as much of Europe was buried in record amounts of snow and subfreezing temperatures.

"Experts" who believe in global warming, uh climate change, went on television where they bravely tried to make a distinction between weather, which they said was about what happens today, and climate, which is long term. Most of it fell on deaf -- and cold -- ears as growing numbers disbelieve the "experts," relying more on their own "lying eyes."

Writing Sunday in London's Daily Mail, columnist David Rose analyzed recent scientific data amassed by eminent climate scientists. Rose says that far from a warming planet, "the bitter weather afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years."

Rose cites data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, which found that, "Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 percent, since 2007."

This, he says, challenges "some of the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such as their claim that the North Pole will be free of ice by the summer of 2013."

During last month's climate summit in Copenhagen, more than 150 scientists with backgrounds in climate science wrote an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a global warming believer.

The letter begins, "climate change science is in a period of 'negative discovery' - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly the science is not settled."

The scientists challenge 10 of the main claims of the global warming-climate change true believers and write, "... there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes.

"Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena."

That seems more than reasonable, but politicians in Europe and America want to rush through additional restrictions on how we live in order to seize more power. This is the major reason for their panic attack.

As new scientific evidence adds to the body of information, history and common sense, the power grab by the politicians is in peril. The hurry-up offense, to employ a football term, is being used to rush through legislation before the defense can devise an effective response. But the defense is now on the offense, and the offense is being forced to poorly play defense.

Should we do nothing about our consumption of petroleum? No, we should use this window of opportunity to decrease our reliance on petroleum; not because of "climate change," but to deprive the oil-producing nations of money too many of them use to underwrite terrorism.

This should satisfy both the global warming disciples and deniers and make America and Europe less dependent on nations that wish to destroy our liberty. But threats to liberty are not limited to some oil-producing nations; they can also be found in the British Parliament and in the American Congress.

The falling doctrines now make so much noise that only those without hearing fail to notice.

Examiner columnist Cal Thomas is nationally syndicated by Tribune Media, Inc.

China Gets It!! If the Scientific Causation Glove Doesn't Fit, Precautionary Principle-Based Correlation Can't Convict!

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 04:22:00 +0000

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/china-imprints-all-over-copenhagen-talks-fiasco/

WORLD WATCH: China's imprints all over Copenhagen talks fiasco

By John J. Tkacik Jr.

Washington Times

January 14, 2010

Global warming does not worry China, a fact that partially accounts for Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's shabby treatment of President Obama at the Copenhagen climate conference last month.

In an opinion column in Britain's Guardian newspaper, one insider was quoted as saying, "The truth is this: China wrecked the [Copenhagen] talks; intentionally humiliated Barack Obama; and insisted on an awful 'deal' so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame."

Mr. Obama would have seen it coming if his intelligence briefers had read the Chinese newspapers. After all, details of China's harsh negotiating stance on climate change were published on the front page of Beijing's Science Times on Sept. 7, 2009, in a lengthy article by China's top expert in paleoclimatology, Ding Zhongli.

The article was significant not only because Mr. Ding is China's most prestigious geophysicist, but also because he is vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a post that makes him the final word on climate science for the Chinese Communist Party. Mr. Ding's views substantially shaped China's policies at the conference.

American politicians would be wise to remember that, while there may be a "robust" (but not unanimous) consensus among American scientists that human-source carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of global warming, there is no such view in China. Indeed, so far as Mr. Ding is aware, "the idea that there is a significant correlation between temperature increases and concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide lacks reliable evidence in science." Instead, Mr. Ding avers, "if it is just as geophysicists believe: global temperature change is related to solar activity … then human activity is not the only cause."

[See Wall Street Journal Finally Recognizes Threat Posed to Science By European & Obama Administration-Endorsed Precautionary Principle: It's About Time!!, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom (Dec. 4, 2009) at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2009/12/wall-street-journal-finally-recognizes.html ].

So why the controversy? Last August, Mr. Ding published a study of historical carbon emission statistics from various nations around the world and drew this unremarkable correlation: the more energy a nation generated by burning fossil fuels, the more rapidly its economy grew. Being a politician as well as a scientist — he is vice chairman of the communist-run Democratic Alliance — he grasped its propaganda value.

Mr. Ding now purports to be upset that "developed nations" of the West, after emitting carbon gases into the atmosphere for over a century, suddenly insist that poor "developing" nations — including China — now share the burden of mitigating "predicted dire consequences" of global warming. He deduces that the secret motive for the climate controversy among the Western powers "is to restrain the growth of the developing nations and to preserve their own preferential position."

Science Times opined: "Data calculated and provided by Mr. Ding's Research Task Force lets us see quite clearly the hidden murderous intentions of some countries."

At the negotiating table in Copenhagen, Science Times concluded, China must go on the offensive against those countries to protect its "right to develop."

China's negotiating strategy, explained Science Times, is based firmly on two key concepts: "per capita emissions" within an "historical context." That is, each Chinese citizen has the right to generate carbon emissions equal to any other single person on the planet; and those emissions must be considered over the historical timeline of 1900-2050, with national emission quotas calculated only on the basis of accumulated per capita carbon generation from 1900 to 2005.

This was precisely China's position at Copenhagen: China demanded that the United States, Europe and Japan cut carbon emissions immediately and continue reductions over the next 40 years, while China — and any other "developing" country — may continue to increase emissions until such time as they reach the total 150-year "per capita aggregate" that the Western citizens — both dead and alive — have enjoyed thus far.

All this illuminates the broader propaganda and competitive trade aspects of China's climate change strategy. Given the deep skepticism of the Chinese Academy of Science's top climatologist and the prominence accorded his views in the Academy's publications, it is clear that no one in the Chinese Politburo is truly anxious about the climatic consequences of global warming.

This is not to say China intends to ignore the issue. Far from it. China intends to keep on gaming the Kyoto Protocol's "Clean Development Mechanism" (CDM) scheme under which the wealthy nations pay the "developing" nations, including China, for reductions in predicted growth of carbon emissions. China is already the biggest beneficiary of the CDM's carbon credits. Yet Beijing is adamant that the developed countries refrain from "carbon taxes" on their imports of China's "high-carbon" manufactured goods.

The Chinese government is also eager to dominate world markets for alternative energy technologies like wind power, solar panels and high-power batteries by subsidizing Chinese factories that are in competition with German, Japanese, Spanish and American producers. And at Copenhagen, the United States apparently agreed to help raise $100 billion over the next decade to help "developing countries" — apparently including China — in their "common but differentiated responsibilities" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama's hearty embrace of China's transparently meaningless "commitment" to reduce its "carbon intensity" by the year 2020 is a leading indicator of the administration's willingness to play along with China's nonsense. "Carbon intensity" is, after all, the proportion of carbon emissions per unit of GDP, and if China's GDP continues to grow as it has for the past 30 years — in double digits — China's absolute carbon emissions will grow dramatically. China wins either way. If global warming becomes catastrophic by 2050, China will have continued its economic development unabated and will blame the West; if global warming turns out not so bad, China's competitors in the West will have hobbled themselves irreparably. For these reasons, it is easy to discern China's fingerprints all over the international climate change fiasco.

• John J. Tkacik Jr., a retired Foreign Service officer, was chief of China analysis in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research during the Clinton administration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://english.cas.cn/Administration/Adators/200908/t20090825_33936.shtml

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Ding Zhongli
2009-08-25

Prof. Ding, a Quaternary geologist, was born in Shengzhou, Zhejiang Province in 1957. He graduated in 1982 from the Department of Geology, Zhejiang University, and obtained his Ph.D. degree from the CAS Institute of Geology (the predecessor of today's CAS Institute of Geology and Geophysics, IGGCAS) in 1988. Prof. Ding served as director of IGGCAS from 2000 to 2007. He was elected a CAS Member in 2005, and Chairman of the Chinese National Committee for the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (CNC-IGBP) in 2008.　　

For the past two decades, Prof. DING focused his research on the Quaternary climate change and associated forcing mechanisms, and made a systematic observation and pedostratigraphic correlation of the loess sequences over the Chinese Loess Plateau, laying a fundamental basis for later studies. For the first time he established a 2.6-Ma orbital timescale of stacked grain-size record for Chinese loess that is highly compatible with marine isotope record. He found that the East-Asian winter monsoon intensity registered in the loess grain-size was in phase with Milankovitch cycles, particularly the 100 ka eccentricity cycle, and that the winter monsoon intensity is closely related to global ice volume changes. His achievements and many innovative results have been published in numerous highly-ranked international journals and are widely cited. He has also contributed to textbooks that have been published in America and England.　　He has been awarded many prizes, including CAS Award for Nature Sciences and the Achievements Prize from the Ho Leung Ho Lee Foundation.

Bravo! China Played the Copenhagen Climate Change Concerto With the Finesse of a Maestro

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:54:00 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

By Mark Lynas

Guardian.co.uk

22 December 2009

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate.

This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Obama's EPA Suppresses Scientist's Carbon Data & Promotes Chicken Little Endangerment Finding to Ensure Passage of Waxman-Markey Climate Change Act

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:00:00 +0000

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/CEI-releases-global-warming-study-censored-by-Obamas-EPA--49181632.html

CEI releases global warming study censored by Obama's EPA

By Kevin Mooney

Commentary Staff Writer

DC Examiner

6/26/09

Natural forces as opposed to human activity are largely responsible for temperature fluctuations, according to a new study the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released today as Congress prepares to vote on global warming legislation.

Internal email messages show the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suppressed the report and silenced the author because the scientific evidence did not square with the Obama administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide, CEI claims. The EPA has become overly reliant upon outdated information from the United Nations and has ignored major new scientific developments, the censored study concludes.

[http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf
"CEI is submitting a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of EPA’s position on Endangerment was essentially put under wraps and concealed. The study was barred from being circulated with in EPA, it was never disclosed to the public, and it was not placed in the docket of this proceeding. The emails further show that the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons. CEI hereby requests that EPA make this study public, place it into the doc ket, and either extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to this new study. We also request that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the author of the study, who has worked at EPA for over 35 years...]. [http://www.blogger.com/www.cei.org ]

“While we hoped that the EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its administrator has been talking transparency, since she took office,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

New scientific data highlighted in the report shows that ocean cycles and solar cycles are probably the most important factors behind temperature fluctuations. Moreover, satellite information now indicates there is little chance of endangerment from greenhouse gases, according to the report.

[http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

NCEE Comments on Draft TED for Endangerment Analysis for GHG Emissions under the CAA [Clean Air Act], National Center for Environmental Economics [NCEE], Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency].

[EXCERPT: “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA an d others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclu sions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these groups that may be blamed for this error.

We do not maintain that we or anyone else have all the answers needed to take action now. Some of the conclusions reached in these comments may well be shown to be incorrect by future research. Our conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations that we currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TED that we believe they support our increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these other groups.

As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject. We believe that this review should start immediately and be a continuing effort as long as there is a serious possibility that EPA may be called upon to implement regulations designed to reduce global warming. The science has and undoubtedly will to change and EPA must have the capability of keeping abreast of these changes if it is to successfully discharge its responsibilities. The Draft TSD suggests to us that we do not yet have that capability or that we have not used what we have…”].

Some of the major developments overlooked by EPA official include a continued decline in global temperatures, an emerging consensus that hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense and new studies that demonstrate water vapor will have a moderating influence on temperature.

Going forward, CEI has called upon the EPA to independently analyze the science and to become more transparent in its own reporting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[See House Approves

Climate Change Bill, UPI (6/26/09)

at: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/26/House-approves-climate-change-bill/UPI-90601246060315 ; Greg Hitt and Stephen Power, House Passes Climate

Bill, Wall Street Journal (6/27/09) at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124610499176664899.html].

Fool Me Once, Shame On You; Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me: The New Green Collar Jobs MYTH

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:55:00 +0000

"Anyone who falls for the same deceit twice must accept responsibility for his own gullibility; thus, one should be more watchful the next time around. Originally a child's saying." From the "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

https://cdn.theladders.net/static/images/editorial/greenjobs090608.pdf

http://law.theladders.com/career-advice/green-collar-jobs-myth-reality?et_id=1133490085&sign=y&link_id=536

Green-Collar Jobs: Myth or Reality?

"Green-collar" jobs are mostly springing up at companies that sell sustainability; the rest of the business world isn't rushing to hire a new crop of green execs.

Kevin Fogarty

Ladders.com

June 17, 2009

In the media and in political pronouncements, much has been made of the promise of “green jobs” and the new “green economy.”

Championed by President Obama and his cabinet, new ecological incentives and regulations have been portrayed as a boon for employment in companies invested in environmentally sustainable practices. But will companies look for new executive talent to lead these efforts?

In other words, are green jobs for real, and should you make green a priority in your job search now?

Simply put, the green economy – professions and businesses focused on limiting consumption of natural resources and production of pollutants – isn’t baked yet, said recruiters and green-jobs experts who spoke to TheLadders. There will be few specifically green jobs available in the immediate future, and most jobs at green companies won’t require you to learn new, green skills, they said.

"Green for green's sake is not a profession," said G. Dodd Galbreath, executive director at the Institute for Sustainable Practice and assistant professor at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tenn. The whole green movement has not yet developed to the point that it can generate enough jobs to become an economic force or a real alternative to mid- and senior-level executives looking for jobs that supply a paycheck and satisfy their need to work in an environmentally friendly business, he said.

Green-collar jobs suggest new opportunities to a new breed of worker trained to manage sustainable practices at any type of business and run the new businesses building and designing green technology and materials.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors issued a report late in 2008 that predicts the impact of environmentally sensitive business practices will be such a potent force in the economy that "green" will generate 4.2 million new jobs, but not until 2038.

In fact, critics said, the mayors' predictions are wildly optimistic about what constitutes a "productive" green job and make unwarranted assumptions about how widely and quickly green technology will spread.

During the presidential race in 2008, green jobs figured prominently in the debate about the federal government’s response to the economic downturn and the Obama administration’s early response to the recession.

The Obama administration's economic-recovery plan will spend more than $60 billion on clean-energy investments, including $600 million in green-job training programs ($100 million to expand line-worker training programs and $500 million for green work force training) and nearly $11 billion in spending to make federal, state and local agencies more energy efficient.

However, it doesn't estimate how many green jobs will be created by the spending. Overall, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is designed to create 3.5 million jobs.

Supporters such as the Environmental Defense Fund report that sustainable business practices are already having a tremendous effect on businesses. It has even mapped hundreds of businesses it calls the backbone of the green economy.

Skeptics point out how small those numbers are compared to the economy as a whole and cite costs that will slow green technology's growth. The mayors’ conference counted a mere 750,000 green jobs in 2008 out of more than 135 million U.S. jobs counted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Few green opportunities

Recruiters don’t see the number of green jobs growing much in the next few years. So far, they have seen few new jobs that can be attributed specifically to either green technology or sustainable business practices, according to Daniel Casteel, managing director of the Nashville, Tenn. station of the Stanton Chase International executive-search firm.

"There is a lot of retraining going on among executives," Casteel said. "So far, we're not seeing a lot (of job openings) specifically for sustainable or green technology. We need to answer those questions about where they're going to be and what those titles will be, and how many of them (will exist)."

Some companies jump into what environmental groups classify as sustainable practices for their own reasons – to save money on energy or materials or to promote the safety of their own products and reinforce their own safety procedures, Casteel said.

Others, especially outdoor-oriented companies, do it primarily as marketing – to please their green-friendly customer base, he said.

That has made the title "chief sustainability officer" increasingly popular, especially in large, global companies, but has not, so far at least, meant any real growth in the number of "green" jobs those companies are trying to fill. The chief sustainability officer is a corporate officer who manages and enforces resource and emissions standards companywide.

"Anecdotally, we see a lot of activity, but it's still very unformed,” Casteel said. “CEOs want people who can see around corners: people who can move up in organizations; look three to five years out; and steer the organization, through both formal and informal channels, to put sustainability in the way of the senior leadership without leadership having to do the research themselves."

What is a green job? What is a green company?

Much of the disconnect between the promise of green jobs and the reality lies in how you define a green job, said Jennifer M. Cleary of the The John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, University. Most that qualify are ordinary jobs with "green" responsibilities thrown in, and many cross departmental barriers, blurring areas of responsibility and possibly leading to miscounts of the jobs available.

Among executive jobs that are 100 percent green, Cleary lists those responsible for carbon trading – buying and selling carbon credits that would dictate the amount of carbon emissions a company is permitted by law – but lists most others under administration, IT, finance, sales, marketing and other categories.

"Even establishing an institute to teach it as part of graduate business training is kind of like establishing one to teach about settling the West before settlement had really begun," he said.

"We have an idea you'll need a wagon like a Conestoga, and some directions on which way to go, and we have a book on how to build a cabin on the prairie, but we haven't anticipated Indian raids and the impact on Native Americans and the potential for the buffalo for being killed off. We just can't anticipate those things yet."

Where are the green jobs?

There is a lot of hiring among green companies, those devoted to green causes, green technology or promoting sustainable business practices, Galbreath said. Those businesses – startups in wind, solar and electrical power, or in recycling for profit and other green approaches – are looking for innovators, entrepreneurs, evangelists and engineers, Galbreath said. They're hiring huge percentages of their existing work force, but they're each so small that the number of new full-time positions is negligible, and probably will be for some time.

And how many of those jobs are actually green, meaning they require new green skills and training in sustainable practices? After all, an accountant at a wind farm is no different from an accountant at a shoe manufacturer.

Furthermore, those companies are hiring few people so far, Casteel said. Indeed, their numbers may actually decrease, other observers said, as alternative-fuel and energy companies acquire one another. The number of acquisitions in the alternative-energy business increased 45 percent between 2006 and 2007, according to a 2008 report from business consultancy KPMG International. Almost two-thirds of executives surveyed expected to see continued increases in mergers and acquisitions; one-third expected to buy another company themselves by 2010.

At most companies that aren’t focused solely on sustainability, the green jobs are limited to the “C suite.” DuPont hired former EPA deputy administrator Linda J. Fisher to the post of vice president and chief sustainability officer in 2004. Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Timberland, General Motors, Owens-Corning and most recently AT&T also have created or expanded executive roles to give themselves a chief sustainability officer.

Companies that do hire chief sustainability officers tend to split into those who are serious about sustainability and those who want to be able to show potential investors a list of executive titles with "sustainability" listed prominently, Galbreath said.

But it's not entirely clear how substantive these jobs are or how many subsequent jobs they will lead to, Galbreath said. At most U.S. companies, green initiatives will mean only one or two full-time employees, he said.

One of the greatest growth industries may be in business education about sustainability, according to Galbreath. There are "40 or 50" colleges and universities offering degrees or serious coursework on sustainability that goes beyond traditional environmental science or engineering. Most of them focus more on social responsibility than business, however – another sign that "green" isn't yet ripe enough to grow a significant number of jobs.

Green for green’s sake

For most U.S. workers, green won’t require new training and won’t lead to new jobs. It will just be a new aspect of work, like Human Resources rules to which every manager must adhere, and not a primary job.

"If you want to work in sustainability within a corporation, you still have to have a skill that is fundamental to the economy," Galbreath said. "You have to marry it to accounting or architecture or product design or manufacturing or real estate or development and construction – something that has been sustainable as a business in itself across modern history.

“In the longer term – 10 to 15 years – it's more likely that sustainability will be just one more concern to every executive and not comprise a new class of green worker", he said.

[See also: ITSSD Reports: OBAMA Deceives American Public: 'PUTS OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST' With 'Green Collar Jobs' SCAM That 'Outsources' Windmill Manufacturing, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/itssd-reports-obama-deceives-american.html ].

Of Great Expectations and Climate Change Chicanery: Even Charles Dickens Has Been Outdone!

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:41:00 +0000

In the novel Great Expectations, written in 1860 by Charles Dickens, there is an underlying theme of disillusionment, but it is not a melancholy book. The main character, named Pip, has many "great expectations" in his life, but over the course of time these illusions are slowly shattered." (http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=67927)

"Great Expectations is a novel by Charles Dickens first serialised in All the Year Round from 1 December 1860 to August 1861. It is regarded as one of his greatest and most sophisticated novels, and is one of his most enduringly popular, having been adapted for stage and screen over 250 times. Great Expectations is written in a semi-autobiographical style, and is the story of the orphan Pip, writing his life from his early days of childhood until adulthood. The story can also be considered semi-autobiographical of Dickens, like much of his work, drawing on his experiences of life and people. The action of the story takes place from Christmas Eve, 1812, when the protagonist is about seven years old, to the winter of 1840." See: Great Expectations, Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Expectations.

The novel Great Expectations also raises many thought-provoking philosophical issues which are uncannily relevant for purposes of evaluating the global climate change debate. In particular, isn't it remarkable how European national governments have disingenuously portrayed the human and environmental (described as 'existential') threat posed by global warming and/or climate change, two scientifically distinct terms that have been conflated intentionally by environmental zealots and government bureaucrats the world over? [See, e.g.: Global Warming or Climate Change? It's ALL Relative If We Ignore Science, Reframe Issues, Redefine Words, Adjust Grammar and Use Symbols and Imagery!, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-or-climate-change-its.html ].

We ask the Obama Administration directly - are you, too, raising unrealistic planetary threat scenarios, public fears of environmental catastrophe and 'great expectations' of your own that something can actually be done about what the President has referred to in his inaugural speech as 'the specter of a warming planet'? [See Obama: US will 'roll back the specter of a warming planet', AFP (Jan. 20, 2009), at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iGbumOehd1mBE5Su-zpzXS0utiQQ ].We suggest that the administration carefully review the literal and metaphorical themes conveyed within Charles Dickens' literary masterpiece with an eye towards seeing how they apply to what is actually an onward march towards global regulatory governance over the economic lives of all Americans.

Good versus evil. Dickens most common theme, complicated by the moral ambiguity of many characters and situations. The poses and false appearances many people erect cause us to wonder who is good and who is evil.

Guilt. Related to the good and evil theme is that of guilt. Who is guilty and of what? Does everyone have some guilt?

What is the value of education? Does it improve people or only corrupt them? What exactly is education, anyway?

The danger of wealth and social position to corrupt. Are they corrupt in themselves and thus to be avoided?

City vs. country. One of the oldest thematic traditions in literature is the conflict between city and country. Usually, the city is the scene of corruption, confusion, and problems, while the country hosts innocence and resolution.

The real vs. a facade. Many characters have or erect facades--false fronts or appearances--to hide their real selves. Why? Who are they? Are the facades beneficial or harmful?

The power of imagination to control behavior,

Imprisonment as a metaphor. Several characters are imprisoned--in real prisons, in exile, in self chosen prisons, in psychological prisons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[A CLOSE LOOK AT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CAREFULLY CHOSEN WORDS, "The United States will 'roll back the specter of a warming planet'...", STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS AWARE OF THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE SCIENCE SURROUNDING GLOBAL WARMING/ CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROBLEM, LET ALONE ITS POTENTIAL CAUSES and/or CORRELATIONS. THIS WOULD EXPLAIN WHY HE WOULD INSTRUCT THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO REVIEW CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR AAHNOLD SCHWARNZEGGER'S LONG-SITTING REQUEST FOR THE GRANT OF A STATE WAIVER FROM EPA POLLUTION CONTROL RULES. IT IS PREFERABLE TO ALLOW THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and THE 17 OTHER STATES LOOKING TO ADOPT ITS CARBON 'CAP & TRADE' RULES TO MAKE THE POLITICAL MISTAKE OF OVER-REGULATING THEIR RESIDENTS, THAN TO HAVE WASHINGTON BE CALLED TO BLAME.]

[A SHORT TRIP TO THE DICTIONARY REVEALS HOW THE WORD “SPECTER” IS DEFINED, and how it relates to the notion of GREAT EXPECTATIONS:

Etymology:
French spectre, from Latin spectrum appearance, specter, from specere to look, look at — more at spy
Date:
1605
1 : a visible disembodied spirit : ghost 2 : something that haunts or perturbs the mind : phantasm

------------------------------

spec·ter
play_w2("S0617600")

(spktr)
n.
1. A ghostly apparition; a phantom.
2. A haunting or disturbing image or prospect

------------------------------

Phantasm:

Etymology:
Middle English fantasme, from Anglo-French fantosme, fantasme, from Latin phantasma, from Greek, from phantazein to present to the mind — more at fancy

Date:
13th century

1: a product of fantasy: as a: delusive appearance : illusion b: ghost , specter c: a figment of the imagination 2: a mental representation of a real object.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28861757

Expect 1,000-year Climate Impacts, Experts Say - [NOAA] Study: Stopping emissions won't prevent decreased rainfall, higher seas

MSNBC.com/AP

January 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - Even if the world can cap carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming, expect to see droughts and sea level rise that span centuries, not just decades, according to a new study sponsored by the U.S. government.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," lead author Susan Solomon told reporters.

Instead, the team concluded, warming tied to higher CO2 "is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop."

"Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable" said Solomon, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. All the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation doesn't get even worse, Solomon said. [????]

Waiting could compound problems

[WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? NEITHER WE NOR OUR FAMILIES, OR OUR FAMILIES' FAMILIES' FAMILIES' FAMILIES, WILL BE AROUND TO OBSERVE THESE SO-CALLED 'COMPOUND PROBLEMS'! THIS RAISES THE QUINTESSENTIAL PHILOSOPHICAL RIDDLE: "IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST AND NO ONE IS AROUND TO HEAR IT, DOES IT MAKE A SOUND???" ALTERNATIVELY, PRESIDENT OBAMA & SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THE VERSION OF THIS QUESTION POSED BY THE LATE POLITICALLY INCORRECT COMEDIAN GEORGE CARLIN: "IF A MAN SPEAKS IN THE FOREST AND THERE IS NO WOMAN TO HEAR IT, IS HE STILL WRONG?"]

[IT WOULD APPEAR, BASED ON HIS CAREFUL SELECTION OF THE WORDS 'SPECTER OF A WARMING PLANET', THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA, HIMSELF, IS AWARE OF THIS PHILOSOPHICAL RIDDLE CONSTRUCTED BY 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHER BISHOP BERKELEY. HE "PROMOTED A THEORY...CALLED 'IMMATERIALISM' LATER REFERRED TO AS 'SUBJECTIVE IDEALISM'. HIS DICTUM WAS "Esse est percipi" - "To be is to be perceived". HE TALKED OF OBJECTS CEASING TO EXIST ONCE THERE WAS NOBODY AROUND TO PERCEIVE THEM." See: "If a Tree Falls in a Forest", Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest ].

Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added that "the real concern is that the longer we wait to do something, the higher the level of irreversible climate change to which we'll have to adapt." Meehl was not part of Solomon's research team.

[TO REPEAT OUR MAIN POINT, "WE HUMANS LIVING ON THE PLANET DURING MOST OF THE NEXT MILLENNIUM", WILL NOT HAVE TO ADAPT 1,000 YEARS HENCE TO ANYTHING. TO SUGGEST THIS IS ABSURD!! THIS FANTASTIC STATEMENT POSITS A FALSE POSITIVE, WITH THE INTENTION, AND IN THE HOPE, OF SPURRING PEOPLE TO ACT ON THAT OVER WHICH THEY ULTIMATELY HAVE NO CONTROL. AND WHAT IS WORSE, THE MEDIA IS PROLIFERATING THIS CHICANERY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SCIENTIFIC, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC & LEGAL FACTS FOR THEMSELVES!! SO MUCH FOR THE PROFESSIONALISM OF JOURNALISTS WHOM, BY THEIR ACTS OF ACQUIESCENCE OR WORSE, INACTIONS, ARE ACTUALLY COMPLICIT IN THE PERPETRATION OF THIS FRAUD UPON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!].

The findings were announced as President Barack Obama ordered reviews that could lead to automobiles that emit less CO2 and get higher mileage.

Climate change has been driven by gases in the atmosphere that trap heat from solar radiation and raise the planet's temperature — the "greenhouse effect." Carbon dioxide has been the most important of those gases because it remains in the air for hundreds of years. While other gases are responsible for nearly half of the warming, they degrade more rapidly, Solomon said.

Before the industrial revolution the air contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. That has risen to 385 ppm today, and politicians and scientists have debated at what level it could be stabilized.

The peer-reviewed study concludes that if CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s U.S. Dust Bowl in zones including the U.S. southwest, southern Europe, Africa, eastern South America and western Australia.

The study, which relied on computer models and historical temperatures, was published in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Warming and the seas

Warmer climate also is causing expansion of the ocean and that factor alone is likely to lock in a 1.3 to 3.2 foot sea level rise by the year 3000 if CO2 peaks at 600 ppm, and double that if it peaks at 1,000 ppm, the researchers calculated.

"Additional contributions to sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets are too uncertain to quantify in the same way," Solomon said in a statement. "They could be even larger but we just don’t have the same level of knowledge about those terms. We presented the minimum sea level rise that we can expect from well-understood physics, and we were surprised that it was so large."

Solomon noted that while global warming has been slowed by the oceans, which absorb carbon, that positive effect will wane over time and eventually oceans will actually warm the planet by giving off their accumulated heat to the air.

Alan Robock, of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers University, agreed with the report's assessment.

"It's not like air pollution where if we turn off a smokestack, in a few days the air is clear," said Robock, who was not part of Solomon's research team. "It means we have to try even harder to reduce emissions," he said.

[DEAR PROFESSOR ROBOCK, HOW MUCH IN PRIVATE FOUNDATION AND GOVERNMENT GRANT MONIES DO YOU EXPECT TO OBTAIN AS THE RESULT OF YOUR SOLICITOUS REMARKS??]

Solomon's report "is quite important, not alarmist, [???] and very important for the current debates on climate policy," added Jonathan Overpeck, a climate researcher at the University of Arizona.

[CORRECT. THIS DECEPTIVE & DISHONEST DISCUSSION RAISES FALSE FEARS OF GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ARMAGEDDON THAT WILL INCITE PUBLIC FEAR AND TRIGGER PUBLIC DEMANDS FOR GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD TO ENACT LOCAL, NATIONAL, REGIONAL & GLOBAL REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES TO MITIGATE THEIR INDIVIDUAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH MITIGATION EFFORTS WILL NOT LIKELY HAVE AN IMPACT FOR 1,000 YEARS HENCE!! FOR THIS REASON ALONE, WE CAN SEE WHY GRANT-SEEKING SCIENTISTS, PUBLICITY-SEEKING POLITICIANS AND PROTECTIONIST-MINDED PUBLIC COMPANIES FIND BELIEVE THIS REPORT CAN MAKE AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE CURRENT DEBATES ON CLIMATE POLICY?]

'Quite conservative' figures

[NO DOUBT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CAST THE IMPRESSION TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE CLIMATE SCENARIO IS FAR WORSE THAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK OF!!]

While scientists have been aware of the long-term aspects of climate change, the new report highlights and provides more specifics on them, said Kevin Treberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"This aspect is one that is poorly appreciated by policymakers and the general public and it is real," said Trenberth, who was not part of the research group.

"The temperature changes and the sea level changes are, if anything underestimated and quite conservative, especially for sea level," he said.

While he agreed that the rainfall changes mentioned in the paper are under way, Trenberth disagreed with some details of that part of the report.

"Even so, there would be changes in snow (to rain), snow pack and water resources, and irreversible consequences even if not quite the way the authors describe," he said. "The policy relevance is clear: We need to act sooner ... because by the time the public and policymakers really realize the changes are here it is far too late to do anything about it. In fact, as the authors point out, it is already too late for some effects."

[IT IS PURE FOLLY, LET ALONE, AN ABJECT PUBLIC FRAUD, AND AN EXERCISE IN CREATING 'GREAT EXPECTATIONS', FOR THESE PERSONS, AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, TO REPRESENT THAT THEY CAN DO ANYTHING MEANINGFUL TO STOP WHAT ARE LARGELY NATURAL CYCLES AFFECTED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES TO A SCIENTIFICALLY UNCERTAIN EXTENT].

Geoengineering to remove CO2 from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. "Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative," Solomon stated.

Co-authors of the paper were Gian-Kaspar Plattner and Reto Knutti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and Pierre Friedlingstein of the National Institute for Scientific Research, Gif sur Yvette, France.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-emissions26-2009jan26,0,3460961.story

Obama Clearing Way for California Emissions Waiver

By Ken Bensinger and Jim Tankersley

Los Angeles Times

January 26, 2009

Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles -- President Obama will direct the EPA today to reconsider a Bush-era decision that stopped California and more than a dozen other states from setting their own stricter limits on auto emissions, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Should the agency allow a waiver from federal rules, states could require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks far above current limits. It also would fulfill a long-held goal of environmentalists, as well as one of Obama's campaign promises.

A waiver would be another dramatic rebuke of Bush administration policies, as well as a swift statement that the new president intends to put his own stamp on environmental issues.

"This should prompt cheers from California to Maine," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, who praised Obama as "a man of his word" for the decision.

Tim Carmichael, senior policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, hailed the decision as a vital step for the administration and the world in the fight against global warming.

Passenger vehicles are estimated to emit 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

"I think Obama got a clear message that this is a priority not only for California state protection but also for planetary protection," Carmichael said.

A waiver would be a bitter defeat for the auto industry, which had for years hotly contested the implementation of the California rules and had applauded the Bush administration decision in December 2007 to deny a state waiver for California.

A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said Sunday that the industry group did not have a comment on the matter. Mike Moran, a spokesman for Ford Motor Co., said the company would not release a statement until Obama made a formal announcement.

At least 17 other states have adopted or are considering California's rules, and a waiver also would allow them to regulate tailpipe emissions. Altogether, those states, which include New York and Florida, represent about 40% of the population, according to auto industry estimates.

That has provoked considerable anxiety among carmakers. They could be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007.

The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Bush's waiver denial provoked California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sue the federal government. Separately, Congress launched an investigation on the decision-making process at the Environmental Protection Agency, which must grant California the waiver before the state may regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Last week, Schwarzenegger sent a letter to President Obama asking that the agency reconsider the matter. "Your administration has a unique opportunity to . . . move America toward global leadership on addressing climate change," the letter said.

Also last week, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of California's Air Resources Board, asked the EPA to open a "reconsideration process" in a letter she sent to Lisa Jackson, that agency's new administrator.

In December, Nichols indicated that the state board had been in close contact with Obama's transition team to help plan a way to pass the waiver and adopt specific rules on rolling out the regulation.

Earlier this month, Jackson pledged to reconsider the request -- and hinted that she supported granting it -- during a Senate hearing into her nomination.

After Obama turns the matter over to the EPA, the agency is expected to take several months to reach a final decision on whether to reverse the Bush denial.

News of Obama's expected statement won quick praise from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who said it was "more than welcome news."

As chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, she said, she plans to work with the EPA to move a waiver through quickly.

"An immediate EPA review of the waiver decision shows respect for California" and the other states, Boxer said, while they wait for the "green light to address global warming pollution from motor vehicles."

In 2002, California passed a law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles, but couldn't enforce it, as a series of lawsuits filed by the auto industry held it up.

Last year, judges handed down several rulings that would allow the rule's adoption, but an EPA waiver was still required.

The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 mpg by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 mpg.

To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000.

The Bush administration had been charged with developing final rules for the new federal mileage requirements, but elected to pass that task on to Obama, citing the auto industry's deep economic woes. Those rules must be published by April, and it is expected that the administration will make an announcement on them as soon as today.

In taking up the tailpipe emissions issue after less than a week in office, Obama is sending a signal about the importance his administration places on environmental matters, environmentalists said.

There had been some expectation among them that Obama would instruct the EPA to grant the California waiver immediately, using the existing regulations.

But by sending the matter back to Jackson, Obama also indicates that he is aware of the auto industry's difficulties and willing to develop rules that would accommodate some of its immediate concerns.

Last month, the Bush administration agreed to give General Motors Corp. and Chrysler $17.4 billion in emergency loans.

The two automakers, which suffered the worst sales declines in a quarter-century last year, have until Feb. 17 to submit restructuring plans to the federal government, which will evaluate those plans by the end of March.

In addition to technological concerns, automakers worry that having the California rules in place would create regulatory chaos, with two separate rules on the books. They have argued that if government is going to regulate carbon emissions, as is the case in Europe, there should be one national rule.

That's a position echoed by environmentalists, who believe that California's regulations would open the door for serious discussion for a new countrywide standard.

"It's not going to happen overnight," said Spencer Quong, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "This is a huge notice that the administration is going to deliver on its promise to clean up the environment and fight global warming."

[ONCE AGAIN, WE WONDER HOW ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS CAN MAKE SUCH A FALSE CLAIM WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION'S OWN GOVERNMENT AGENCY HAS JUST REPORTED THAT, "WARMING TIED TO CO2 IS LARGELY IRREVERSIBLE FOR 1000 YEARS"!!]

Where, Oh Where, Could My Promised Green Collar Jobs Be??

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:13:00 +0000

The theme underlying the following blog entry is rather depressing. It involves the loss of cherished 'green collar' jobs that were promised to various political constituencies, including the environmental community. These jobs were supposed to be created in anticipation of and incident to Congress' enactment of strict costly climate change regulations that would have penalized producers and consumers of carbon-based fuels, including energy providers, raised consumer living and business expenses and endangered the viability of many small and medium-sized companies. Arguably, the relatively higher number (millions) of estimated jobs previously promised has since been significantly reduced (to thousands), and is no longer likely to materialize, at least, in the short term, because of the financial 'train wreck' our country, like many others around the world, recently experienced.

---------------

While not nearly as serious as a loss of human life, many within the green community have taken the loss of green collar jobs to heart. We recommend that they listen to the truly melancholy song, Last Kiss, performed by the rock group Pearl Jam, to put things back into proper perspective. < http://www.ilike.com/user/adcuram_A792 >

---------------

Oh where oh were could my baby be

The lord took her away from me

She's gone to heaven so I've got to be good

So I can see my baby when I'll leave this world

We were out on a date in my daddy's car

We hadn't driven very far

There in the road

Straight ahead

A car was stalled the engine was dead

I couldn't stop

So I swerved to the right

I'll never forget the sound that night

The screamin tires

The busting glass

The Painfull scream that I heard last.

Oh where oh were could my baby be

The lord took her away from me

She's gone to heaven so I've got to be good

So I can see my baby when I'll leave this world

When I woke up

The rain was pouring down

There were people standing all around

Something warm falling into my eyes

But some how I found my baby that night

I lifted her head

she looked at me and said

Hold me darling just a little while

I held her close

I kissed her our last kiss

I found the love I knew I had missed

but now she's gone even though I hold her tight

I lost my love, my life that night

Oh where oh were could my baby be

The lord took her away from me

She's gone to heaven so I've got to be good

So I can see my baby when I leave this world

ooooooooooooooooooooooo

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2234144/lack-initiative-robs-future

Lack of initiative robs US of future green jobs

American Solar Energy Society cuts green jobs prediction, following lack of government action over past twelve months

Danny Bradbury, BusinessGreen 16 Jan 2009

As President-elect Obama prepares to take office, the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has this week warned that a lack of action has already affected the potential for green job creation in the long-term, potentially robbing the country of almost three million jobs.

The organisation yesterday released its second report, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century, outlining the potential for job creation in both the renewable energy sector, and the much broader energy efficiency industry.

The report highlighted three scenarios, depending on how aggressive job creation strategies are: a base, 'business as usual' option, a moderate scenario, and an advanced one. In all three, the economic significance of the energy efficiency category outweighed that of the renewable energy one.

Roger Bezdeck, principal investigator at Management Information Services and an author of the report, warned that the potential job gains from these areas were already falling due to a lack of government support.

Comparing this year's report to its predecessor, issued a year ago, he said that a failure to stimulate the green jobs market over the last twelve months had already impacted the potential for green collar job creation. The initial report, released in November 2007 had put the the number of jobs within these two categories at between 16 million and 40 million, depending on which scenario public policy followed. However, the top-end prediction for new jobs created by 2030 fell to 37 million in the latest report.

"Every year you lose in the beginning, from 2007-2010, has a highly disproportionate negative impact at the end," he concluded, arguing that there was now an urgent need for more investment in green job schemes. "That's why our forecast for 2030 this year is less than it was for last year."

However, the report did find that the green jobs market is still growing rapidly. It said that in 2006, the energy efficiency and renewables accounted for 8.5 million jobs in the US, with energy efficiency dwarfing renewable energy by a factor of 18. By 2007, the total figure had risen around six per cent to just over 9 million.

Permalink: http://www.businessgreen.com/2234144

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=464&Itemid=58

Colorado ‘Green Collar Jobs’ forecast: 613,000 jobs from renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2030 -

ASES / MISI study highlight’s Colorado’s new role as a national leader in the rapidly growing green economy

BOULDER, CO – 1/15/2009 – Colorado is well positioned to take advantage of new growth in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, creating long-term opportunities in rapidly growing fields. The renewable energy and energy efficiency industries (RE&EE) generate $10.2 billion in annual revenue and provide more than 91,000 jobs in Colorado (2007) with potential for these industries to grow sixfold by 2030.

These are some of the report’s conclusions from the state’s first comprehensive ASES Green Collar Jobs report, produced by the nonprofit American Solar Energy Society (ASES) based in Boulder, and by Management Information Services, Inc (MISI), an internationally recognized research firm based in Washington D.C. This report, which also includes new national jobs data, provides some of the most detailed analysis yet in the rapidly growing RE&EE industries.

You can download the free report at: www.ases.org/greenjobs.

“In a surprisingly short time Colorado has effectively positioned itself as a national leader in the green economy,” said Brad Collins, ASES’ Executive Director. “Colorado’s experience offers a good case study for other states on how to tap into the tremendous economic opportunities in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors.”

According to the advanced scenario in the report, which represents the upper limit of what is technologically and economically feasible, RE&EE would generate about 613,000 jobs and $61.5 billion in annual revenue by 2030. It’s one of three forecast scenarios highlighted in this report. Under the base case (business as usual) scenario, which assumes no major change in policy or initiatives, the green job forecast is about 192,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion in revenue in Colorado by 2030 – less than one third the jobs and revenue than the advanced scenario. The third scenario assumes moderate policies and initiatives and forecasts 238,000 jobs and more than $24 billion in revenue by 2030.

Key conclusions from the report include:

• Renewable energy and energy efficiency industries are already significant economic drivers in Colorado and are well positioned for future growth. In 2007 RE/EE generated $10.3 billion in sales and provided over 91,000 jobs in Colorado, accounting for more than 4% of the gross state product. This could grow to as much as $61.5 billion and 613,000 jobs by 2030 with continued leadership, research, development, and policy efforts.

• Despite fierce competition from other regions of the U.S., Colorado is a disproportionately large player in the renewable energy industry. Colorado’s gross state product accounts for only about 1.7% of the U.S. GDP, but in 2007 Colorado had about 6% of the U.S. wind market, nearly six percent of the photovoltaics market, and about 5% of the biofuels market.

• Hottest sectors include: wind, solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, fuel cells, biofuel, R&D (federal government), recycling, energy efficient windows/doors, green building• The vast majority of jobs created by RE&EE are in roles similar to roles that are in other industries. Hot job areas include: electricians, truck drivers, welders, machinists, roofers, accountants, cashiers, software engineers, civil engineers, energy efficient construction, energy audit specialists.

• While renewable energy sectors are growing more rapidly than the energy efficiency industry, the energy efficiency industry is much larger and will see the greatest number of new jobs added.

• Current RE/EE jobs are located throughout the state, in urban centers, suburbs, small towns, and rural areas. Most of the firms are relatively small, though they range in size significantly. These firms employ workers at all skill levels, from basic and rudimentary to the very highly skilled technical and professional.

• RE&EE generates about 70% more jobs than the oil and gas sector. RE&EE is an effective job creation mechanism, generating more than 2.5 times as many jobs per revenue as the oil and gas sector.

The report also detailed over 160 of RE&EE occupational specialties and emerging areas, as well as corresponding salaries, and education requirements representing a wide range skills. While some positions require advanced degrees, many others offer relatively high salaries with a high school diploma, trade school, or apprenticeships. Examples include: solar operations engineer ($87,400), solar installation electrician foreman ($58,236), wind field service technician ($44,344), and field energy consultant ($60,076).

[WHAT JOBS, IF ANY, WOULD THEY BE REPLACING? AND, HOW MANY OF THESE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS ARE MANUFACTURED IN THE U.S.? WHAT U.S. MANUFACTURING JOBS WOULD BE CREATED? IF THE SOLAR PANEL EQUIPMENT IS IMPORTED FROM ABROAD, THEN WOULDN'T U.S. GREEN COLLAR JOBS CONSIST OF OFFLOAD, TRANSPORT, ASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION JOBS, BUT NO DESIGN OR MANUFACTURING JOBS?]

The study is jointly commissioned by the Governor’s Energy Office, Xcel Energy, Department of Local Affairs, Office of Economic Development and International Trade, Colorado Workforce Centers, City and County of Denver, Workforce Board of Metro Denver, and Red Rocks Community College. The results of this study will help guide policymakers, business leaders, and education officials in their efforts to support future industry growth.

Last year several high-profile companies announced plans to bring thousands of private sector jobs to Colorado, including Vestas wind turbine manufacturing, Conoco-Phillips alternative energy research center, AVA Solar manufacturing facility, IBM’s green-data center, RES Americas’ new U.S. headquarters, and Siemens wind research center. These announcements further illustrate the increasing role Colorado is playing in the New Energy Economy.

[IS THIS STILL GOING TO HAPPEN? HOW MANY GREEN COLLAR JOBS WILL IT CREATE? PRESIDENT OBAMA MUST USE CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING TO LEND COMPANIES, EITHER DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH STATE & LOCAL ENTITIES, THE NECESSARY FINANCES TO BUILD THE SOLAR & WINDMILL TURBINE FACTORIES THAT WOULD EMPLOY, TRAIN AND RETAIN U.S. WORKERS AND WORKMANSHIP.]

About the American Solar Energy SocietyFor more than 50 years the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has been leading national efforts to promote education, public outreach, and research about solar energy and other sustainable technologies. http://www.ases.org/

About Management Information Services, IncManagement Information Services, Inc (MISI) is an internationally recognized, Washington D.C.-based economic research and management consulting firm with expertise in economic forecasting, analysis of energy, environmental and electric utility issues, and labor markets. www.misi-net.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ases.org/images/stories/ASES/pdfs/CO_Jobs_Rpt_Jan2009_summary.pdf

Green Collar Jobs in the U.S. and Colorado

By Roger H. Bezdek

American Solar Energy Society

January 2009 (c)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29&Itemid=16

Green-Collar Jobs: The New Cash Crop

ASES’ new report shows renewable energy & energy efficiency industries generating 8.5 million jobs across the U.S.

America Solar Energy Society

WASHINGTON, Nov 6, 2007 – Do you have a green job? You will… A new report from the nonprofit American Solar Energy Society shows that as many as 1 out of 4 workers in the U.S. will be working in the renewable energy or energy efficiency industries by 2030.This is the nation’s first comprehensive report on the size and growth of the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries – and the numbers are great news for American workers. This green collar job report shows that these industries already generate 8.5 million jobs in the U.S., and with appropriate public policy, could grow to as many as 40 million jobs by 2030. “The green-collar job boom is here,” said Neal Lurie, Director of Marketing of the American Solar Energy Society.

“Renewable energy and energy efficiency are economic powerhouses.”This new report officially released on Thursday, November 8 in Washington D.C. The report is called Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century. Download the report. Research was led by internationally renowned energy economist Roger Bezdek, Ph.D., President of Management Information Services, Inc, based in Washington, D.C.Key findings of the report include:

By the year 2030, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries could generate up to $4.5 trillion in revenue in the U.S., but only with the appropriate public policy, including a renewable portfolio standard, renewable energy incentives, public education, and R&D;

The 40 million jobs that could be created in renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2030 are not just engineering-related, but also include millions of new jobs in manufacturing, construction, accounting, and management;

Renewable energy and energy efficiency industries today generate nearly $1 trillion in revenue in the U.S. contributing more than $150 billion in tax revenue at the federal, state, and local levels;

Revenue from the energy efficiency sector -- including from energy efficient windows, appliances, insulation, and recycling -- is currently larger than revenue from renewable energy, but the renewable energy industry is growing much more quickly;

Solar, wind, ethanol, and fuel cells are likely to be some of the hottest areas of growth.

The study will serve as a guide to national, state and local leaders eager to attract renewable energy and energy efficiency businesses and to establish new manufacturing facilities and sales offices.About the American Solar Energy Society:Founded in 1954, American Solar Energy Society (ASES) is the nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the use of solar energy, energy efficiency, and other sustainable technologies in the U.S. ASES organizes and presents SOLAR 2008, leads the ASES National Solar Tour, and publishes SOLAR TODAY magazine. Learn more at: http://www.ases.org/

Half Full or Half Empty? NASA Says It's Coldest Year in Decade; UK-based World Meterological Organization Says it's Tenth Warmest Year in Century

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:01:00 +0000

The U.S. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) states:

"The meteorological year, December 2007 through November 2008, was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements. It was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008.

The UK-based Hadley Centre of the World Meteorological Organization states:

"In a preliminary report, released today on behalf of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global mean temperature for 2008 is 14.3 °C, making it the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.

Figure 1 Left: Annual-means of global-mean temperature anomaly Right: Global map of surface temperature anomalies, in degrees Celsius, for 2008.

The map of global temperature anomalies in 2008 (right panel of Fig. 1), shows that most of the world was either near normal or warmer than in the base period (1951-1980). Eurasia, the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm, while much of the Pacific Ocean was cooler than the long-term average. The relatively low temperature in the tropical Pacific was due to a strong La Niña that existed in the first half of the year. La Niña and El Niño are opposite phases of a natural oscillation of tropical temperatures, La Niña being the cool phase.

Figure 2

Top: Seasonal-mean global and low latitude temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period.

Bottom: Monthly-mean global-ocean surface temperature anomaly, based on satellite temperature analyses of Reynolds and Smith

The left of Fig. 2 provides seasonal resolution of global and low latitude surface temperature, and an index that measures the state of the natural tropical temperature oscillation. The figure indicates that the La Niña cool cycle peaked in early 2008. The global effect of the tropical oscillation is made clear by the average temperature anomaly over the global ocean (right of Fig. 2). The "El Niño of the century", in 1997-98, stands out, as well as the recent La Niña.

Figure 3 compares 2008 with the mean for the first seven years of this century. Except for the relatively cool Pacific Ocean, most of the world was either near normal or unusually warm in 2008. The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes 2008 cooler than all of the previous years this decade.

As shown by the right side of Fig. 3, most of the United States averaged between 0.5 and 1°C warmer than the long-term mean during 2001-2007.

The GISS analysis of global surface temperature, documented in the scientific literature [refs. 1 and 2], incorporates data from three data bases made available monthly: (1) the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of the National Climate Data Center [ref. 3], (2) the satellite analysis of global sea surface temperature of Reynolds and Smith [ref. 4], and (3) Antarctic records of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) [ref. 5].

In the past our procedure has been to run the analysis program upon receipt of all three data sets and make the analysis publicly available immediately. This procedure worked very well from a scientific perspective, with the broad availability of the analysis helping reveal any problems with input data sets. However, because confusion was generated in the media after one of the October 2008 input data sets was found to contain significant flaws (some October station records inadvertently repeated September data in the October data slot), we have instituted a new procedure. The GISS analysis is first made available internally before it is released publicly. If any suspect data are detected, they will be reported back to the data providers for resolution. This process may introduce significant delays. We apologize for any inconvenience due to this delay, but it should reduce the likelihood of instances of future confusion and misinformation.

Note that we provide the rank of global temperature for individual years because there is a high demand for it from journalists and the public. The rank has scientific significance in some cases, e.g., when a new record is established. However, otherwise rank has limited value and can be misleading. As opposed to the rank, Fig. 3 provides much more information about how the 2008 temperature compares with previous years, and why it was a bit cooler (again, note the change in the Pacific Ocean region).

Figure 3 below. Comparison of 2008 (left) temperature anomalies with the mean 2001-2007 (right) anomalies. Notice that a somewhat different color bar has been used than in Figure 1 to show more structure in the right-hand map).

Finally, in response to popular demand, we comment on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record. Specifically, the question has been asked whether the relatively cool 2008 alters the expectation we expressed in last year's summary that a new global record was likely within the next 2-3 years (now the next 1-2 years). Response to that query requires consideration of several factors:

Natural dynamical variability: The largest contribution is the Southern Oscillation, the El Niño-La Niña cycle. The Niño 3.4 temperature anomaly (the bottom line in the left panel of Fig. 2), suggests that the La Niña may be almost over, but the anomaly fell back (cooled) to -0.7°C last month (December). It is conceivable that this tropical cycle could dip back into a strong La Niña, as happened, e.g., in 1975. However, for the tropical Pacific to stay in that mode for both 2009 and 2010 would require a longer La Niña phase than has existed in the past half century, so it is unlikely. Indeed, subsurface and surface tropical ocean temperatures suggest that the system is "recharged", i.e., poised, for the next El Niño, so there is a good chance that one may occur in 2009. Global temperature anomalies tend to lag tropical anomalies by 3-6 months.

Solar irradiance: The solar output remains low (Fig. 4), at the lowest level in the period since satellite measurements began in the late 1970s, and the time since the prior solar minimum is already 12 years, two years longer than the prior two cycles. This has led some people to speculate that we may be entering a "Maunder Minimum" situation, a period of reduced irradiance that could last for decades. Most solar physicists expect the irradiance to begin to pick up in the next several months — there are indications, from the polarity of the few recent sunspots, that the new cycle is beginning.

Figure 4, below. Solar irradiance through November 2008 from Frohlich and Lean.

However, let's assume that the solar irradiance does not recover. In that case, the negative forcing, relative to the mean solar irradiance is equivalent to seven years of CO2 increase at current growth rates. So do not look for a new "Little Ice Age" in any case. Assuming that the solar irradiance begins to recover this year, as expected, there is still some effect on the likelihood of a near-term global temperature record due to the unusually prolonged solar minimum. Because of the large thermal inertia of the ocean, the surface temperature response to the 10-12 year solar cycle lags the irradiance variation by 1-2 years. Thus, relative to the mean, i.e, the hypothetical case in which the sun had a constant average irradiance, actual solar irradiance will continue to provide a negative anomaly for the next 2-3 years.

Volcanic aerosols: Colorful sunsets the past several months suggest a non-negligible stratospheric aerosol amount at northern latitudes. Unfortunately, as noted in the 2008 Bjerknes Lecture [ref. 9], the instrument capable of precise measurements of aerosol optical depth depth (SAGE, the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment) is sitting on a shelf at Langley Research Center. Stratospheric aerosol amounts are estimated from crude measurements to be moderate. The aerosols from an Aleutian volcano, which is thought to be the primary source, are at relatively low altitude and high latitudes, where they should be mostly flushed out this winter. Their effect in the next two years should be negligible.

Greenhouse gases: Annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m2 per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years due to slowdown of CH4 and CFC growth rates [ref. 6]. Resumed methane growth, if it continued in 2008 as in 2007, adds about 0.005 W/m2. From climate models and empirical analyses, this GHG forcing trend translates into a mean warming rate of ~0.15°C per decade.

Summary: The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.
Further Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

2008 global temperature

MET Office

16 December 2008

In a preliminary report, released today on behalf of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global mean temperature for 2008 is 14.3 °C, making it the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850.

Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia maintain the global climate record for the WMO. They say this figure is slightly down on earlier years this century partly because of the La Niña that developed in the Pacific Ocean during 2007.

La Niña events typically coincide with cooler global temperatures, and 2008 is slightly cooler than the norm under current climate conditions. Professor Phil Jones at the CRU said: "The most important component of year-to-year variability in global average temperatures is the phase and amplitude of equatorial sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific that lead to La Niña and El Niño events".

The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990–1999.

Dr Peter Stott of the Met Office says our actions are making the difference: "Human influence, particularly emission of greenhouse gases, has greatly increased the chance of having such warm years. Comparing observations with the expected response to man-made and natural drivers of climate change it is shown that global temperature is now over 0.7 °C warmer than if humans were not altering the climate."

Calculating the changing risk attributable to human influence is part of an ongoing collaboration between the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of Oxford. Commenting on the dramatically increased odds of such warm years because of human induced climate change, Dr Myles Allen from Oxford University said: "Globally this year would have been considered warm, even as recently as the 1970s or 1980s, but a scorcher for our Victorian ancestors."

Beneath the underlying warming, temperature continues to fluctuate from year to year as a result of natural variations. Stott added: "As a result of climate change, what would once have been an exceptionally unusual year has now become quite normal. Without human influence on climate change we would be more than 50 times less likely of seeing a year as warm as 2008."

Notes

The Met Office Hadley Centre is the UK’s foremost centre for climate change research. Partly funded by Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the newly-established Dept of Energy and Climate Change and the Ministry of Defence it provides information to and advice to the UK Government on climate change issues.

The Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia maintain the global temperature record – HadCRUT3 – on behalf of WMO.

Globally, temperature was 0.31 °C above the 1961-90 average. In the northern hemisphere the mean temperature was 0.51 °C above average (8th warmest on record) and in the southern hemisphere it was 0.11 °C above average (20th warmest).

Dr Peter Stott is head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre; Professor Phil Jones is head of the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia; Dr Myles Allen is head of Climate Dynamics at Oxford University.

Governator et. al. Tread On Thin US Constitutional Ice: Conduct State-Province Foreign Policy to Secure Carbon Credits for Local Companies

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:53:00 +0000

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/60minutes/main4677334.shtml

Schwarzenegger's Green Challenge [TERMINATING GLOBAL WARMING]

CBS News

Dec. 21, 2008

(CBS) President-elect Obama is 30 days from office. For a window on his future, turn west for a moment to a chief executive who is already up to his neck in the nation's troubles.

This month, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger warned of financial Armageddon, as California faced a potential $40 billion deficit that threatened jobs, roads, schools and public safety. At the same time, he's pushing some of the world's toughest environmental laws to make California a leader on climate change.

[BY MEANS OF INDIRECT TAXATION & 'USE' RESTRICTIONS THAT TOGETHER IMPAIR THE EXERCISE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.]

[See: the new ITSSD Journal on Indirect Taxation, at: http://itssdjournaltaxation.blogspot.com ].

[See: Lawrence A. Kogan, Terminating Global Warming, Energy Dependence or Private Property Rights, ITSSD (June 2006) at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/Terminating-Global-Warming.pdf ].

The governor agreed to take 60 Minutes along during his most challenging times. How does he deal with it all? Well, what would you expect a former action hero to say?

"The more difficult it gets, the more joy I find in it. Because it's just great to figure out all of the ways of bringing people together and shaping policy. But to get it done, to get there is always a long process. But when you get it done, it’s very satisfying," Gov. Schwarzenegger told correspondent Scott Pelley.

Maybe it was acting. When 60 Minutes met Schwarzenegger at the state Capitol in Sacramento, he had just declared a state of emergency. His budget plan touched off a political firestorm which, of course, in California, would be accompanied by a real one.

Schwarzenegger and Pelley visited one Los Angeles neighborhood burned to ash just weeks before - evidence to Schwarzenegger that even in these times, the greatest threat is climate change.

[ONCE AGAIN, THE SCIENCE HAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED A MEASURABLE, PRIMARY CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITIES, NONCYCLICAL GLOBAL WARMING & NONCYCLICAL CLIMATE CHANGE - SO THE GOVERNATOR'S STATEMENT IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING BECAUSE THIS HAS NOT YET BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN].

"It all happened so fast they couldn't save one single one of those homes. Over 500 homes here were destroyed within hours," Schwarzenegger explained as they walked through charred remains.

"You know, there's been a lot of research that suggests that there are more fires and there are hotter fires because the fire season has been extended by climate change," Pelley remarked.

"Well, we have been doing some research in that, and we have seen the changes. We don't have a fire season anymore. It starts in the beginning of the year and goes all year around and so it has created, of course, big challenges," the governor said.

Asked what he tells someone who says climate change is theoretical and questions the harm, Schwarzenegger told Pelley, "I always say, well there were people that were debating over if the world is a globe. They thought for a long time it was flat. And there's still people that think that they're flat. And there are people that still live in the Stone Age."

[THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS THEORETICAL, BUT RATHER, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE NONCYCLICAL & CAUSED BY NONCYCLICAL GLOBAL WARMING INDUCED PRIMARILY BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES].

Schwarzenegger wants to revolutionize energy with aggressive limits on greenhouse gases. [HIDDEN TAXES ON THE LOW & MIDDLE CLASSES] In a little more than ten years, a third of California power is supposed to flow from renewables, like solar energy. And he wants to cut tailpipe emissions 30 percent in eight years.

Asked if it's the wrong time to switch the way America uses energy - in light of the economic emergency, Schwarzenegger said, "I think that there's never the wrong time. There's always the right time. I will argue the opposite. Because we have seen that the industries that are performing well in California, even right now in this economic decline, is green technology. It's really spectacular to see those manufacturers coming up to me and saying, 'Our business is booming,' while there's an economic decline. So, green technology's where it's at."

[WHAT 'BOOMING' BUSINESS? WHAT JOBS? PORT JOBS - i.e., THE UNLOADING, WAREHOUSING & TRANSPORTING OF, and ASSEMBLY JOBS - i.e., THE ASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION OF, IMPORTED SOLAR PANEL, WINDMILL & AUTO BATTERY COMPONENTS and COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHTBULBS?]

He'd like to turn greener faster, but he's been fighting the Bush White House and, ironically, environmentalists.

"You can't build a solar power plant in the Mojave Desert in California because there's concern about an endangered squirrel?" Pelley asked, referring to the attempts to meet the renewable power standards.

"Well first of all, let me just say the Mojave Desert is the best place to have a solar field because it is the most sun they have sun all year round, it's the best place but, there's some that want to hold it up because they think that it will endanger some animal life there that is going overboard," Schwarzenegger said. "Because the environmentalists are the first ones to say, 'Yes, we need renewable energy. We should get rid of, you know, using our energy from coal and from natural gas,' and all those kind of things. But then when you say, 'Okay, let's do renewable, let's go that,' 'Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up, not so fast.'"

And when he tried to impose the cuts in tailpipe emissions, President Bush's EPA administrator Stephen Johnson said no. "I could tell in his eyes that he did not believe in it, that we would never get it, that he will create every obstacle. And the administration just had no interest in it," Schwarzenegger recalled.

So Schwarzenegger sued the administration. "What we wanted to do is just say 'Look, America, the United States, is not doing the right thing and is not moving this agenda forward, and is really trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or have an energy policy or an environmental policy. So, therefore we as a state are forced to create our own,'" he told Pelley.

He went as far as to create his own foreign policy. Last month, Schwarzenegger held a world summit on climate change in Beverly Hills.

He did what Washington would not do, signing an emissions declaration with government officials from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, India and China. Then he took the delegates to the L.A. Auto Show, where they were no doubt impressed with the horsepower of his celebrity.

He owned the room, but in a sense he was behind enemy lines. The big three automakers had sued Schwarzenegger to stop cuts in tailpipe emissions. They lost. And he was here to grill them about their alternative fuel cars.

"I have been in Detroit in 2000 and have talked to the car manufacturers then to put hydrogen engines in the cars and start experimenting. And they said to me then, 'Well, this would take five to ten years to do something like that.' Well, that time has come now. Where are the cars?" Schwarzenegger questioned.

"When you came out in California with your stricter emissions standards, you know there were billboards all over Michigan which said, 'Arnold to Detroit: drop dead,'" Pelley remarked.

"Right, that's true. That was the best free publicity I could get. But actually I was not saying, 'Arnold to Detroit: drop dead,' I was just saying, 'Get off your butt,'" Schwarzenegger said.

Not many people know that Schwarzenegger personally invented the civilian Hummer. The maker of the military version told him that it could never be made street legal, so Schwarzenegger bought one and spent $100,000 of his money to show that it could be done.

[WE MUCH ADMIRE YOUR CAN-DO ATTITUDE, BUT LET'S TRY TO REMAIN TRUTHFUL TO THE PUBLIC].

Schwarzenegger’s action helped launch the brand that is the very symbol of greenhouse gas gluttony.

That original Humvee, which Schwarzenegger still occasionally uses to ride around Los Angeles, has now been modified to run on cooking oil. "You can literally go up to a restaurant and get cooking oil," he told Pelley.

Now he has re-invented the vehicle with green that's more than skin-deep. He has one variation that runs partly on hydrogen, and this one has an engine modified to run on bio fuel. "I mean, it runs, basically, on anything. Anything natural," he said, as he took Pelley for a ride in it.

His point is that trying to chase Americans out of their big cars, what he calls "guilt-trip environmentalism," has failed. "And my point was is keep all of the stuff that you like. But change the technology," Schwarzenegger explained. "So I started really pushing that agenda in a positive way. Look at the great things that we can do. We can turn this whole thing around. The damage that we have created over the last 100 years, we can undo that."

[DEAR GOVERNATOR, DOES THIS MEAN, AS RECENTLY REVEALED, THAT YOU ARE ENCOURAGING INCREASED IMPORTS OF MANUFACTURED RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS FOR WINDMILLS, SOLAR PANELS and AUTO BATTERIES FROM ASIA & EUROPE???]

[See: Holy Guacamole Batman! Those Electric Auto Battery Manufacturing Jobs You Promised Are NOT American GREEN, But Rather Foreign RED, BLUE & ORANGE!!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/12/holy-guacamole-batman-these-electric.html ; How Many New Obama Administration-Created American Jobs Will it Take to Change an Imported Chinese Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-many-new-obama-administration.html ; How QUIXOTIC - US 'Green Collar Jobs' Now Include Servicing 'Outsourced' Manufactured Windmill IMports!!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-quixotic-us-green-collar-jobs-now.html ; OBAMA Deceives American Public: 'PUTS OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST' With 'Green Collar Jobs' SCAM That 'Outsources' Windmill Manufacturing, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/itssd-reports-obama-deceives-american.html ].

This "have it all" philosophy leads some critics to say the governor sees green through rose-colored glasses, that he tends to underplay challenges involving cost and technology.

Pelley and the governor's drive ended where Schwarzenegger began, Venice Beach, where the body builders go. The cops came out with a picture that hangs in their station from back in the day when the future governor was Mr. Universe five times and Mr. Olympia seven times.

And he had a few tips, which were less about weight lifting than finding clever ways to plow though obstacles. The governor spotted while Pelley prepared to lift some weights. They were at a Venice Beach landmark, Muscle Beach, that Schwarzenegger helped make famous.

"And these are only 70s," Pelley remarked.

"But why so much weight?" Schwarzenegger replied.

"I usually do 75s," Pelley said.

"I mean, when you do it for the cameras you do only 50, so you take it easy. You don't kill yourself," Schwarzenegger replied, laughing.

Asked if that's the trick, Schwarzenegger said, "Oh yeah. Absolutely. I remember when I did this scene in 'Stay Hungry' at the squats with Sally Fields watching there. And I had to do it over and over again. And I had 225 pounds on it, as I learned very quickly, put on wooden plates."

"You're not telling me that's what you did in the movies?" Pelley asked.

"You can't. No, no, not me," Schwarzenegger said, laughing.

This is Schwarzenegger's 40th anniversary in America. Venice Beach is, in a sense, where he came ashore. Asked what he thought of America when he arrived in 1968, Schwarzenegger said, "You know, I felt that if there is such a thing as a before life and an afterlife, then definitely my before life I was an American. Because when I arrived here, when I got off the plane, I felt like I'm at home."

But now "home" is in trouble. California is the foreclosure capital, and unemployment is above eight percent. The governor proposed to close that budget deficit half with tax increases and half with budget cuts. Republicans and Democrats opposed him.

When 60 Minutes sat down with Schwarzenegger at the Capitol, he had just left the legislative leadership and he seemed in no mood. Before they got settled, Pelley was worried that the last thing the governor wanted to do was talk to him.

"I’m not sure that meeting went all that well. You seem pretty preoccupied. You got the 'Terminator look' on your face," Pelley remarked.

"It doesn't work on me. No psyching out," Schwarzenegger said, laughing. "It doesn't work."

"No, I was just being honest," Pelley said.

When the interview got going, Pelley asked about that morning's editorial in that most Republican of opinion pages, the Wall Street Journal.

Schwarzenegger had seen it.

"Savage. Savage. They said you were taxing and spending this beautiful state to ruin, to use their words. What do you think when you read that?" Pelley asked.

"I think this is part of the job, that you have people way on the left that will attack you for making cuts. You will have people way on the right that will attack you for your spending," the governor replied.

"If you read between the lines in the Wall Street Journal editorial, it's essentially asking, 'What kind of Republican are you?'" Pelley remarked.

"For me, the most important thing is, when I make a decision, is what is best for the people of California, and what is best for our economy, and what's best for the state, not what is best for my party. I'm not a party servant. I'm a public servant," Schwarzenegger said.

Schwarzenegger likes to call his way "post-partisan," and he just campaigned successfully through a controversial reform that makes traditionally Democratic or Republican legislative seats more competitive at election time.

But his approval rating has dropped from 60 percent two years ago to 40 percent now. Still, that's better than the legislature gets - 21 percent.

Running California means running the eighth largest economy in the world and with two years left as governor, Schwarzenegger will soon have to find an encore.

Being born in Austria would seem to disqualify him from the next political step.

"Well, you're a man of no small ambition. If the Constitution was changed, you'd like to be president, wouldn't you?" Pelley asked.

"Yeah, absolutely," Schwarzenegger acknowledged. "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high, that are almost impossible to achieve. Because then, you're always hungry for climbing and climbing. Because it's always interesting. The climb is always interesting. When you get there you just have to pick another goal."

He's already won over the president-elect to his environmental goals. At Schwarzenegger’s environmental conference, Mr. Obama sent a video message endorsing the California plan and said under this administration, the US would adopt similar greenhouse gas reduction goals.

But now Schwarzenegger still has to head off that budget disaster - to find middle ground that no one else can see - and keep up the appearance that the climb is a joy. "People think show business was in Hollywood but I think Reagan was absolutely right, if he wouldn't have the training in acting this would have been a very difficult job and I think that's what it is, that's reality," Schwarzenegger said.

Produced by Henry Schuster

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-na-climate20-2008nov20,0,4199014.story

California leads fight against climate change on global level

Gov. Schwarzenegger signs a pact with heads of other states and provinces to cut greenhouse emissions. 'We have got to do something worldwide here,' he says.

By Margot Roosevelt

The Los Angeles Times

November 20, 2008

California formally moved to spread its can-do global warming gospel around the world, signing a declaration Wednesday with 11 other U.S. states and provinces or states in five other countries to help them slash their greenhouse gas emissions.

Fighting climate change shouldn't just go "nation by nation," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a climate summit in Beverly Hills attended by more than 700 delegates from 19 countries. It must go "province by province. . . . We have got to do something worldwide here," he said.

California's unusual state-level diplomacy comes as President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to invigorate U.S. participation in negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which took effect in 2005 -- and which the Bush administration declined to join.

Talks on a new climate treaty resume in Poland next month, and final agreement is expected to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. But success is far from assured as industrial nations, which have caused much of the world's global warming, battle with fast-growing developing nations such as China to determine who should cut emissions.

Regional leaders signing Wednesday's declaration said they would develop strategies for high-polluting industries in an effort to influence the talks. The signers included 12 U.S. governors and state or provincial representatives from Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia and India.

[FORTUNATELY, THESE REGIONAL LEADERS FAILED, AT LEAST FOR NOW. See: Hey, Yvo de Boer - Don't You Cry No More, No More, No More, No More, Cause Poznan Ain't Go'in Your Way!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/12/here-here-yvo-de-boer-please-dont-cry.html ].

California has developed more technical expertise in controlling planet-heating emissions than any U.S. state in the two years since it passed a law requiring its emissions to fall by about 15% in the next 12 years. And although the federal government has stalled in adopting any economy-wide climate legislation, the Golden State has forged ahead with renewable energy standards, automobile tailpipe regulations, efficiency incentives and forest carbon protocols.

[THIS IS HUMOROUS, BUT SAD. HOW CAN THE MERE PASSAGE OF AN UNPROVEN LAW IMPOSING COSTLY CARBON EMISSIONS CAPS REFLECT CALIFORNIA'S EXPERTISE IN CONTROLLING PLANET-HEATING EMISSIONS???]

"California is a little spot on the globe, but the influence we have on the rest of the world is enormous," Schwarzenegger told the conference, touting the "green jobs" that the state would produce from solar and other clean-technology energy.

The declaration sets in motion a process for the state's Air Resources Board, one of the world's oldest and most sophisticated pollution control agencies, to share engineering and policy expertise with regions such as Brazil's Amazon states and Indonesia's forested provinces on how to measure and control greenhouse gases.

China, India, Brazil and other fast-developing nations have resisted caps on their emissions.

"The industrial countries that have been spewing out the most greenhouse gases have a higher responsibility to act," said Gov. Ana Julia de Vasconcelos Carpa of the Brazilian state of Para.

About 20% of the world's annual carbon emissions come from burning forests in Brazil, Indonesia and other tropical nations. In an international carbon market, as envisioned in California's global warming law, U.S. industries could pay to preserve tropical forest as a cheaper way to meet their own global warming targets. It is a source of income that foreign leaders are eager to tap.

[THIS IS OTHERWISE REFERRED TO AS THE 'CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM' OF THE U.N. KYOTO PROTOCOL].

Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, one of the signers of the agreement, said that his heavily forested state also would share research with the tropical nations. "We have a joint interest in how the carbon market moves forward," he said. "We want to ensure that forest lands and their facility in capturing carbon receive appropriate credit. This will be a big political fight in this country and around the world."

Tropical deforestation, which was excluded from the emissions rules in the Kyoto Protocol, is expected to be incorporated in the new treaty. But how the developing nations are compensated by wealthy nations for not burning down their forests is far from resolved.

With California and other U.S. states facing severe fiscal restraints as the economy worsens, nonprofit organizations including the Climate Group, Conservation International and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation have pledged funds to support working groups and draft position papers for states and provinces that signed Wednesday's pact.

"Everyone wishes they could just say, 'I'm going to protect my forest, so give me money,' " said Peter Seligmann, chief executive of Conservation International. "But we have to verify that any commodity is real. Now these regions are linking with California, the eighth largest economy in the world, in an effort to create a verifiable source of carbon credits. That is huge."

[THAT IS ALSO VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. SEVERAL CARBON CREDIT VERIFICATION FIRMS HAVE LOST THEIR ACCREDITATION WITH THE UNITED NATIONS DUE TO QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/FINAL-Governors_Summit_Declaration_11.18.08_with_signatures.pdf

Memorandum of Understanding to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation (REDD)

States from the Federative Republic of Brazil and Indonesia representing the largest tropically forested states of the world, signed agreements with American States [California, Illinois & Wisconsin] to work cooperatively to promote and develop joint REDD programs.

Amapá, Brazil - http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/MOU.Amapa-Brazil_Signed_111808.pdf

Pará, Brazil - http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/MOU.Para-Brazil_Signed_111808.pdf

Amazonas, Brazil - http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/MOU.Amazonas-Brazil_Signed_111808.pdf

Mato Grasso, Brazil - http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/MOU.Mato_Grasso-Brazil_Signed_111808.pdf

Aceh, Indonesia - http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/MOU.Aceh-Indonesia_Signed_111808.pdf

Papua, Indonesia - http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/MOU.Papua-Indonesia_Signed_111808.pdf

[A REVIEW OF THESE AGREEMENTS REVEALS, GENERALLY, THAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS & WISCONSIN GREENHOUSE GAS-EMITTING COMPANIES WITH THE ABILITY TO OFFSET EMISSIONS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY NEW CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS AND/OR WISCONSIN GHG EMISSIONS CAPS WITH CREDITS EARNED FROM AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATION &/OR OTHER APPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES/PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY SUCH COMPANIES WITHIN THESE FOREIGN COUNTRY PROVINCES].

[ONE SET OF STATED GOALS IS "TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION & LAND DEGRADATION, and TO SEQUESTER ADDITIONAL CARBON THROUGH RESTORATION & REFORESTATION OF DEGRADED LANDS AND FORESTS, and THROUGH IMPROVED FOREST MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES". See: Article 2(a)].

[ANOTHER SET OF STATED GOALS IS "TO DEVELOP RULES TO ENSURE THAT FOREST EMISSIONS, REDUCTIONS AND SEQUESTRATIONS, FROM ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AT THE SUB-NATIONAL LEVEL" WILL COMPLY WITH "EACH PARTY'S STATE, PROVINCIAL, REGIONAL, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, SUCH AS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT (ASSEMBLY BILL 32), MIDWESTERN GREENHOUSE GAS ACCORD, WESTERN CLIMATE INITIATIVE, REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE, OR OTHER INITIATIVES". See: Article 2(b)].

[IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING SAID COMPANIES THE ABILITY TO EARN SUCH CREDITS FROM PROPERLY MANAGED FORESTS LOCATED WITHIN THESE COUNTRY PROVINCES, THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS & WISCONSIN WILL PROVIDE FOREST MANAGEMENT, CERTIFICATION & VERIFICATION TECHNICAL SKILLS TRAINING , AND WILL FACILITATE THE TRANSFER OF OTHER THAN PATENT, COPYRIGHT or TRADE SECRET-PROTECTED RENEWABLE ENERGY & RELATED TECHNOLOGIES BY SUCH COMPANIES TO, AND WILL MAKE GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS WITHIN, THESE FOREIGN COUNTRY PROVINCES . See: Articles 3 and 7].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://site.governorsglobalclimatesummit.org/uploads/FINAL-Governors_Summit_Declaration_11.18.08_with_signatures.pdf

Global Climate Solutions Declaration [Political & Legally NONbinding]

[THIS AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING U.S. STATES:

CALIFORNIA; COLORADO; FLORIDA; ILLINOIS; KANSAS; MARYLAND; MASSACHUSETTS; MICHIGAN; NEW YORK; OREGON; UTAH; WASHINGTON; WISCONSIN,

AND

AMAPA, BRAZIL; AMAZONIA, BRAZIL; GROSSO, BRAZIL; MATO, BRAZIL; PARA BRAZIL; BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, MANITOBA, CANADA; ONTARIO, CANADA; QUEBEC, CANADA; KARNATAKA STATE, INDIA; ACEH, INDONESIA; JAKARTA, INDONESIA; BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO; SANOVA, MEXICO.]

[A REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT WILL REVEAL THAT IT IS AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A 'STATE-PROVINCE PARTNERSHIP', IN FURTHERANCE OF INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS, PURSUANT TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TO PROMOTE THE FULFILLMENT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE CONCERNING THE NEED TO ACHIEVE QUANTIFIABLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS. EFFORTS WILL BE FOCUSED ON REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS IN THE FOLLOWING ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRY SECTORS: FORESTRY, AGRICULTURE, CEMENT, IRON and STEEL, ALUMINUM, ENERGY & TRANSPORTATION. See: p. 1].

[THESE EFFORTS WILL ENTAIL PROMOTION OF "INVESTMENTS IN SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING TRANSFER OF CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH, AND ASSISTANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION & DEPLOYMENT OF CLIMATE-FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGIES, PARTICULARLY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES." THEY WILL ALSO ENTAIL "ACCELERAT[ING] CAPACITY-BUILDING EFFORTS TARGETED TOWARD KEY SECTORS OF THE[IR] ECONOMIES... See: p.1].

[THESE EFFORTS WILL ALSO FOCUS ON FOSTERING JOINT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LABORATORY and OTHER ACADEMIC, SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL INFORMATION EXCHANGES. See: p.2]

[LASTLY, THESE EFFORTS WILL ALSO "FOCUS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT and DEPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY and RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, ZERO- and LOW CARBON ELECTRICITY GENERATION and FUELS, IMPROVED MOBILITY THROUGH BETTER PLANNING and TRANSPORATION INFRASTRUCTURE, BIOLOGICAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION, CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS and ADAPTATION"... See: p.2].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE GOVERNATOR and SOME OF HIS COLLEAGUES, HAVE BACKED DOWN A BIT FROM THEIR PREVIOUSLY AMBITIOUS FOREIGN POLICY FORAYS]:

["In some cases, individual states and/or regional groups of states have entered into or otherwise participated in international initiatives with foreign national provincial and/or municipal governments.145 To the extent that such activities conflict with federal policy and influence, substantially affect, or otherwise undermine U.S. foreign relations, including foreign commerce, with such nations, it is arguable that such state initiatives intrude upon the plenary authority of the President, subject to the Treaty Power of the Congress, to conduct foreign affairs on behalf of the nation, not to mention the authority of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations.146 In that case, such initiatives may be susceptible to challenge under Sections 8 and 10 of Article I, and Clauses 1 and 2 in Section 2 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.147

The states, however, have taken the legal position that they have the constitutional right to enter into executive agreements with foreign nations, provinces, and/or cities because they have always done so pursuant to the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.148 In addition, they have argued that, in any event, their activities affect neither U.S. foreign relations with those nation-states nor U.S. foreign policy, including foreign commerce, generally conducted by the President and/or Congress through executive agreements and/or formal treaties.149"

...In addition to establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets by executive order in 2005,447 during January 2007, Schwarzenegger signed an executive order directing California agencies to develop the world’s first low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).448 Previously, the California Governor had executed executive agreements with foreign nations to target GHG emissions.449 In 2006, Schwarzenegger signed separate agreements with the United Kingdom and Sweden to foster cooperation in combating climate change and promoting renewable energy. While the Sweden agreement was limited to technology exchanges aimed at promoting biogas and other renewable fuels,450 the United Kingdom agreement borders on a treaty to reduce GHG emissions. The United Kingdom agreement commits both parties to enhanced scientific collaboration in developing new energy technologies, assessing regional climate change impact and the economic effects of climate and mitigation policies, as well as cooperation in implementing “market-based” mechanisms addressing climate change.451

During March 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger’s aides publicly expressed his intention to

"link [California’s] planned emissions trading system to the European Union’s market, boosting efforts to build a global mechanism to fight climate change. . . . 'Our governor has asked us to design a market that could be compatible with the ETS, the European trading system,' [said] Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency".452

Apparently, a member from Schwarzenegger’s cabinet had been sent to Brussels to meet with officials from the European Commission and European Parliament in order to learn more about the EU emissions trading system.453 This effort recently culminated, during October 2007, in California’s entering into an international agreement with a group of other U.S. states (including the other members of the Western Climate Initiative—discussed later), Canadian provinces, and a coalition of European Union countries to launch the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP).454

...New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer...[ALSO] traveled to Brussels in October 2007 to attend a political summit with European leaders for the specific purpose of executing an international carbon emissions trading agreement (the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP)) with the European Commission, United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway."471

[See: Lawrence A. Kogan, The Extra-WTO Precautionary Principle: One European 'Fashion' Export the United States Can Do Without, 17 Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 491, 528-529, 574-575, 578 at: http://www.itssd.org/Kogan%2017%5b1%5d.2.pdf ].

Holy Guacamole Batman! Those Electric Auto Battery Manufacturing Jobs You Promised Are NOT American GREEN, But Rather Foreign RED, BLUE & ORANGE!!

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:39:00 +0000

[BEFORE READERS CONTINUE ON, THEY SHOULD NOTE THAT THE DEFINITION OF 'GREEN-COLLAR JOBS' IS DECEPTIVELY BROAD, VAGUE AND LABOR-ORIENTED. READERS SHOULD ALSO ASK THEMSELVES WHETHER THE CURRENT HYBRID CARS THEY ARE DRIVING CURRENTLY GENERATE SUCH AMERICAN JOBS, AND WHETHER THEY CAN DO SO IN THE FUTURE].

Keith Johnson, at The Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog, noted the same discrepancy, coming to the conclusion that “in a nutshell: ‘green-collar jobs’ can run the gamut from park rangers to Prius mechanics to physicists fiddling with nano photovoltaic research.” ]

[HOWEVER, IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE WHAT THE PUNDITS SAY, THEY UNIVERSALLY AGREE THAT: 'GREEN-COLLARED JOBS' "CANNOT BE EASILY OUTSOURCED TO ASIA"].

[Green jobs are especially good “because they cannot be easily outsourced, say, to Asia,” said Van Jones, president of Green for All, an organization based in Oakland, Calif., whose goal is promoting renewable energy and lifting workers out of poverty. “If we are going to weatherize buildings, they have to be weatherized here,” he said. “If you put up solar panels, you can’t ship a building to Asia and have them put the solar panels on and ship it back. These jobs have to be done in the United States.” ]

[SO, IF THE PRIMARY 'GREEN' COMPONENTS OF THE HIGHLY ACCLAIMED HYBRID GAS/ELECTRIC VEHICLES (HEVs) CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN THE U.S. & THE 100% ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVs) OF THE FUTURE THAT POLITICIANS ARE PROMISING WILL COME TO THE U.S. WITHIN A FEW YEARS ARE MANUFACTURED OVERSEAS, HOW DO THEY GENERATE 'GREEN-COLLAR AMERICAN JOBS'??]

[ALSO, HOW THEN, CAN PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA CLAIM THAT HE CAN DELIVER '5 MILLION NEW GREEN-COLLAR JOBS' FOR AMERICA?? HE CANNOT! HOW THEN, WILL THERE BE MANY NEW 'GREEN-COLLAR AUTO JOBS' IN THE U.S.?? THERE REALLY WON'T BE UNLESS U.S. MANUFACTURING IS REESTABLISHED! ARE THE DETROIT TRIO WILLING TO INVEST ALL OF THE MONIES THEY EVENTUALLY MAY RECEIVE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM CONGRESS FOR THIS PURPOSE?? ]

[THAT'S WHY PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA HAS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF NEW 'GREEN-COLLAR AMERICAN JOBS' PROMISED DURING HIS CAMPAIGN TO 2.5 MILLION NEW AMERICAN JOBS OVERALL, WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING THE WORD 'GREEN'!!]

[See: Obama Boasts Plans for Millions of New GREEN COLLAR Jobs That Cannot be Outsourced; Can He Deliver? Hillary Says NO!!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-boasts-plans-for-millions-of-new.html .]

[ON A RELATED NOTE, THIS PAST FALL, THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT FINALLY RELEASED A REPORT WHICH WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY DAMPENED ENTHUSIASM AT THE SEPTEMBER 2008 PARIS AUTO SHOW. THE REPORT CONCLUDES THAT HYBRID GAS/ELECTRIC VEHICLES (HEVs), NOT 100% ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVs), PROVIDE THE MOST PROMISING FUTURE FOR GREEN AUTOMAKING. THE REPORT FOUND THAT DUE TO SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT PROBLEMS, VOLTAGE DRAW DEMAND FROM ONBOARD AUTO ACCESSORIES, AND LACK OF EXPENSIVE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RECHARGING THESE VEHICLE BATTERIES ON THE ROAD, THEIR PROJECTED MILEAGE RANGE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTENED SO AS TO MAKE THEM LESS DESIRABLE FOR MOST DRIVERS THAN HEVs. THE RELATIVE PORTION OF THIS REPORT, KNOWN AS THE SYROTA REPORT, IS REPRODUCED BELOW.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gFG9YgNaU1T9_fcTl_NbxR1PKPtw

China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale: car maker

Agence France Presse

December 15, 2008

BEIJING (AFP) — China's first mass-produced hybrid electric car hit the market on Monday, its manufacturer said, in a move aimed at driving the nation to the cutting edge of the world's green auto industry.

The car is made by BYD Auto, a Chinese company backed by American Warren Buffett, one of the world's most successful investors who owns 9.9 percent of the firm.

The F3DM is also the world's first mass-produced plug-in hybrid car, meaning owners can charge it from powerpoints at home for the first time, as well as in specialised electric car charging stations, according to BYD.

BYD president Wang Chuanfu was quoted by Chinese media as saying that his firm and China were on their way to being world leaders in the fuel-efficient auto industry.

"Through the F3DM dual-mode electric vehicle, BYD will grab a head-start in the new energy automobile market," he said at the launch in the southern city of Shenzhen, according to Auto 18, an online platform for China's auto industry.

A spokeswoman for the company confirmed the launch took place on Monday, but gave no other details.

BYD, which also specialises in making rechargeable batteries, only started making cars in 2003 when it bought a bankrupt state-owned auto company.

Its hybrid car is planned to first go on the market in 14 Chinese cities, and the firm is initially focusing on striking deals for company fleets rather than individuals, mycar168.com, another auto website, quoted Wang as saying.

The United States, meanwhile, is currently examining the F3DM to see if it meets the necessary standards for its domestic market, a spokesperson for the firm was quoted as saying by pcauto.com.cn, another car-focused web portal.

Exports to the United States could begin from 2010, according to the report.

The Prius hybrid electric car, made by Japan's Toyota, is currently sold in China, but the F3DM is the first locally made hybrid vehicle to hit the market.

Other carmakers in China have also manufactured these types of hybrid cars but never released them for public sale, said Duan Chengwu, a Shanghai-based technical analyst with international market research firm Global Insight.

The F3DM, meanwhile, has beaten Toyota and General Motors in the plug-in area, as the two companies only plan to launch hybrid cars that can be charged from home in 2009 and 2010 respectively, Duan said.

BYD's hybrid car, which can run 100 kilometres (62 miles) on a full battery, will cost just under 150,000 yuan (22,000 dollars).

Duan expressed doubt that the F3DM would initially be successful with Chinese customers because of the high price.

"In the initial stage, I don't think Chinese customers will buy a lot of these cars, but BYD wants to use them to test the waters," he said.

"Ultimately, though, this kind of car has a big potential in the Chinese market, and in the world market, because we all know we need new energy cars to solve the environmental and oil crisis problems."

Duan said Chinese automakers still lagged behind Western companies in conventional car technologies, but were at a similar level when it came to hybrids.

"The Chinese manufacturers have the opportunity to leapfrog the traditional technologies and to gain a leading position in terms of new energy cars," he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/15/content_10509776.htm

World's First Mass-Produced Plug-in Hybrid Car on Sale in China

Chinaview.cn

12-15-2008

SHENZHEN, Dec. 15 (Xinhua) -- The first mass-produced plug-in hybrid car in the world, manufactured by Chinese auto maker BYD, went on sale on Monday in the southern city of Shenzhen.

"The F3DM is the world's first hybrid car that is not reliant on specialized electric charging stations. It is the cutting-edge product to the global green auto industry," said president of BYD Wang Chuanfu of the new car.

The car can run up to 100 kilometers on its electric engine and shift to a gasoline engine when it runs low on power. It has beaten hybrid cars by Toyota and General Motors that could run just 25 km before recharging.

The car's battery can be charged in nine hours from a regular electrical outlet or within an hour at BYD's charging stations. The battery can be recharged up to 4,000 times.

The new model's retail price was less than 150,000 yuan (about 21,428 U.S. dollars), about the same as many home-made mid-sized sedans.

It was welcomed by governments and state-owned banks. The city government of Shenzhen and China Construction Bank have pledged to buy some of the cars in support of the project. The provincial government of Guangdong also said it would "help accelerate promoting BYD's hybrid car project".

Analysts said the new car would need more government support to keep its feet in the market because its price was much higher than the company's current F3 mid-sized sedan, on which the new vehicle was based.

Zhang Xin, an auto analyst with Shanghai-based Guotai Junan Securities, said BYD had chosen the right way to gain a leading position in the global market, but it would take some time before consumers accepted the new car.

BYD is a private company based in Shenzhen. It started out as a battery maker and now is the world's No. 1 supplier of Nickel-battery, cellphone used Li-battery and keypad. In 2003, the company bought Tsinchuan Automobile Company Limited to begin its auto business.

U.S. investor Warren E. Buffett has a 9.89 percent stake in the Hong Kong listed company.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1593

Short Supply: American-made Electric Car Batteries

By Bill Moore

EV World.com

December 7, 2008

The key component for America's automotive rebirth isn't even made here.

The Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car was on display at the 2009 EDTA conference. Production models due out in 2009 will be powered by lithium ion battery cells manufactured in Asia, as are virtually all hybrid car battery packs…

As Big 3 CEO's, the head of the UAW, and various invited economic experts appeared before Congress this week, one key witness was missing, which is ironic, because the success or failure of a revitalized American auto industry pivots around its presence.

That missing witness is an American advanced automotive battery manufacturing industry.

With all the talk on Capitol Hill this week about Big 3's plans to introduce advanced, plug-in electric cars, with the CEO's dramatically arriving to testify in conventional hybrids and advanced prototype plug-in models, little if any attention was paid to the fact that America has next to no advanced automotive lithium ion battery production capacity.

With the exception of a currently shrinking handful of US-based firms, virtually all advanced nickel metal hydride (NiMH) and lithium ion (Li-ion) production is done overseas, mainly in China, Japan and Korea.

Two Japanese companies: Panasonic and Sanyo produce nearly all of the batteries found in today's hybrids, including those manufactured by Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Nissan and Ford. And Panasonic, whose hybrid battery production JV is now largely owned by Toyota.

[Toyota], is seeking to acquire Sanyo, which would give it nearly monopolistic control of all NiMH battery production for automotive applications.

US-based Cobasys, originally founded as joint-venture between Troy, Michigan-based ECD and General Motors to produce NiMH batteries for the now extinct EV1 electric car, produces nickel-based batteries for the troubled giant's hybrids, but its fate is uncertain.

Between legal spats with Daimler and product quality issues with GM, as well as management problems, the joint venture with Chevron-Texaco remains, at best, a small player in a rapidly shifting market. Two other NiMH plays, Colorado-based NiLar and ElectroEnergy, which also produces lithium-based cells, have run into either technical obstacles or financial ones.

On the lithium ion battery front, the picture is much the same. The literally thousands of finger-sized cells that power the Tesla Roadster come from Asia. The same goes for the battery cells the Chevy Volt, the extended range electric car on which General Motors is pinning its future.

The battery "pack" in the Volt consists of a series of battery modules, each similar to the starter battery on a small car or motorcycle. Inside these modules are individual "cells", each rated at 2-3 volts. These are connected together to make a module, which is connected to all the other modules to make a single 16 kilowatt hour battery pack, giving the car a range of 40 miles on electric power only.

General Motors contracted with two firms to develop the battery pack for the Volt: Michigan-based Compact Power, Inc. (CPI) and Germany's Continental AG (Conti). CPI gets its cells from its parent, LG Chem, the giant Korean conglomerate. Conti partnered with Massachusetts-based A123 Technologies for their cells, but those cells are manufactured in China.

So the lithium battery technology inside the Volt "mule" -- a converted Chevy Cruze -- in which GM CEO Rick Wagner arrived on Capitol Hill for a second round of Congressional hearings, ultimately came from Asian manufacturers, not American ones.

There are just a tiny handful of North American lithium cell manufacturers that are actively engaged in producing cells for automotive applications.

Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls and French-based Saft have created a joint-venture -- JSC -- to produce advanced automotive batteries, but at the moment production is in France with product consigned for use in BMW and Mercedes hybrids in Europe.

ElectroEnergy, which originally hoped to manufacture a bi-polar NiMH battery, decided to acquire an abandoned lithium ion cell plant in Gainesville, Florida. Originally built by Energizer Holdings in the early 1990s, the plant closed without producing a single 18650 cell -- the kind that powers most laptop computers and digital cameras -- for commercial sale when cheaper, better Asian cells began to flood the market. It sat idle for a decade until ElectroEnergy acquired it, hoping to tap into the burgeoning market for lithium batteries. During the recent Electric Drive Transportation Association conference in Washington, D.C., the company president, Michael Reed announced that having run out of operating cash and potential investors, he was within days of going out of business, this despite having some $7 million dollars in orders.

Another US-based, advanced battery manufacturer, Altair Nanotechnologies, produced a small number of its advanced lithium ion batteries -- the cells themselves originally sourced from a Chinese partner -- for Phoenix Motorcars, which was using them for its electric truck conversion project. While initially showing very promising results in terms of fast charge capability and battery longevity, the company's automotive battery venture has yet to emerge from the custom prototype pack stage. Phoenix has had to turn to other potential suppliers.

One of those suppliers is Toronto-based Electrovaya, whose Superpolymertm chemistry was initially developed for laptop computers. Efforts by the State of New York to woo the company into a building a plant in its economically depressed Upstate region have made little headway as Electrovaya increasingly turns it attention to India and Europe. It is collaborating with Indian industrial giant Tata and a Norwegian company to build an all-electric car in Scandinavia. It is also studying building a battery plant in India, the home of its co-founder, Dr. Sankar DasGupta.

The advanced lithium ion batteries in the Segway scooter -- and now the Brammo electric motorcycle -- come from Austin, Texas-based Valence. However, actual cell production is, again, in China.

The one bright spot at the moment in all-American advanced automotive battery manufacturing is EnerDel and its Ener1 battery production unit. The Indianapolis-based manufacturer is developing packs to power the Th!nk City electric car in Norway, which is slated for a US introduction sometime around 2010. According to EnerDel Chairman Charles Gassenheimer, the company is also in discussions with at least two other OEMs.

The firm's Indianapolis facilities produce both lithium ion cells and finished battery packs; and it recently acquired the third largest lithium cell manufacturer in Korea, obviously anticipating growth.

The Chicken and Egg Again

The most frequently voiced concern to EV World among both established and up-and-coming electric vehicle manufacturers and converters is the dearth of available advanced batteries. They just aren't to be had.

A large part of the problem is a lack of production capacity -- wildly fluctuating resource costs don't help either. From the supply of lithium salts in Chile and China, to over-extended assembly lines, the lithium battery industry, which only came into being just over a decade ago, is structured to produce cells and finished batteries for the portable electronics market, not the automotive market. Advanced automotive battery manufacturers are cranking out all the units they have the physical capacity -- and financial wherewithal -- to produce.

Toyota sales of Priuses slipped through most of 2008, not because of a lack of consumer interest, but largely because of a shortage of battery packs. The story is the same at Ford with its Escape and Marina Hybrids. New York City's plan to shift all of its cabs to hybrids has been stymied, in part, because cab owners argued they couldn't buy the cars.

In the classic chicken-and-egg conundrum, lithium salt producers and battery manufacturers won't build additional capacity unless they have firm orders they can take to the bank, and even then -- as ElectroEnergy's Michael Reed has learned -- that isn't always a guarantee. Gambling with the future of one's company, be it in Santiago or Indianapolis, given the uncertainty of the auto industry worldwide, militates against any decisions to expand capacity, at least until the present fog of fear starts to dissipate. And no one is hazarding a guess when that might occur.

This has led to suggestions that local, state and federal agencies use their not-insigificant financial resources to place large, hard orders for advanced electric-drive vehicles, helping stimulate demand. U.S. President-electric Obama has pledged, where security allows, to shift The White House fleet of vehicles to plug-ins shortly after taking office next year. The U.S. Army announced it is looking to acquire electric vehicles.

All these are positive steps, but until investors and banks are willing to underwrite the growth of U.S.-based battery production capacity, encouraged by federal policy, the lion's share of plug-in vehicle battery production will remain offshore. While it can be argued that $50 billion in foreign battery imports is better than $500 billion in foreign oil imports, the nurturing of an America advanced battery production infrastructure seems critically important to the economic security of the nation.

END STORY

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/An_electric_plan_for_energy_resilience_2276

An Electric Plan for Energy Resilience

By Andy Grove and Robert Burgelman

The McKinsey Quarterly

DECEMBER 2008

The fastest way to reduce America's dependence on oil imports is to convert petroleum-driven miles to electric ones by retrofitting the SUVs and pick-ups now on the road with rechargeable batteries. Here's how.

...On December 12, 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported that former Intel CEO and current senior advisor Andy Grove has been pushing the world’s leading chipmaker to get back into a business it long ago abandoned— making batteries. This article, commissioned months ago by McKinsey for an upcoming publication called What Matters, lays out his case for why. Whether Intel gets into the game or not, Grove thinks the United States should launch a major effort to convert existing gas-fueled vehicles into plug-in electric ones.

Every president since Richard Nixon has vowed to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. None has succeeded. Imports—and thus America’s vulnerability to disruptions—have increased to where now they supply two-thirds of consumption. As former Secretary of State George Schultz asked: “How many more times must we be hit on the head by a two-by-four before we do something decisive about this acute problem?”

Our aim should not be total independence from foreign sources of petroleum. That is neither practical nor necessary in a world of interdependent economies. Instead, the objective should be developing a sufficient degree of resilience against disruptions in imports. Think of resilience as the ability to absorb a significant disruption, bigger than what could be managed by drawing down the strategic oil reserve.

Our resilience can be strengthened by increasing diversity in the sources of our energy. Commercial, industrial, and home users of oil can already use other sources of energy. By contrast, transportation is totally dependent on petroleum. This is the root cause of our vulnerability.

Our goal should be to increase the diversity of energy sources in transportation. The best alternative to oil? Electricity. The means? Convert petroleum-driven miles to electric ones.

Electric miles do not necessarily mean relying on all-electric cars, which would require building an extensive and expensive infrastructure. They can be achieved by so-called plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). (Since many plug-in cars are modified hybrid automobiles, they are sometimes called PHEVs.) PEVs have both a gasoline-fueled engine and an electric motor. They first rely on the electricity stored onboard in a battery. When the battery is depleted, the vehicle continues to run on petroleum. The battery then can be charged when the vehicle is not in service.

The amount of gasoline a PEV consumes is dependent on the number of miles it is driven between the times when it is recharged. Let us explain this by simplifying the picture a bit. If the electric-only range is, say, 40 miles, and the number of miles driven between charges is less than 40, the vehicle uses no gas at all, so it’s not possible to calculate the miles per gallon. If the number of miles driven is greater than the electric range, the gas mileage starts out very high and then declines with the additional miles until the mileage approaches what an ordinary gasoline-powered vehicle would provide. Consequently, the fuel performance of the vehicle is defined by a curve (exhibit). The 40-mile mark was chosen because it is a good range to shoot for. More than 80 percent of the cars on US roads are driven less than that distance daily.

Several hundred prototypes of PEVs are currently on the road. So what would it take to build enough of them to make a significant dent in oil consumption? Revamping the fleet of automobiles already on the road through production of new automobiles would take far too long for comfort. If ten automobile manufacturers each introduced a new PEV now and increased its production as fast as Toyota did with its highly successful Prius, the vehicles would still account for less than 5 percent of the 250 million vehicles on US roads a decade from now.

We believe the United States should consider accelerating this movement by creating an industry of after-market retrofitters. What problems—technical and economic—would need to be solved in order to do that? With the help of a team of second-year graduate students in our Bass seminar at the Stanford Business School, we examined this question in the context of a proposed pilot program, whose aim would be to retrofit one million vehicles in three years. We felt that such a project would represent what in game theory is referred to as the “minimum winning game”: a significant step toward a long-term strategic objective.

We estimate the price tag of such a pilot project to be around $10 billion, owing to the present high cost of batteries, which are around $10,000 each. One might expect such costs to drop as volume increases, but because this program is accelerated by design, we have to assume that batteries will remain expensive. Assuming an average gas price of $3 per gallon, the payback period to the owner of a retrofitted vehicle is at least ten years, not a strong economic incentive. But the benefits of this program—testing and validating a key approach to energy resilience—accrue to the well-being of the United States at large. As the general population is the predominant beneficiary, economic assistance flowing from everyone to vehicle owners, in the form of tax incentives, is justified.

There are different approaches to retrofitting vehicles. We favor GM’s Volt design, in which the car is directly driven by an electric motor. The vehicle’s existing gasoline engine is replaced by a smaller one, whose sole purpose is to generate electricity and recharge the battery. To simplify the retrofitting task, we would limit the scope of the program to six to ten Chevrolet, Ford, and Dodge models, selected on the basis of two criteria: low fuel efficiency and large numbers of vehicles on the road. Most of these vehicles would be SUVs, pick-ups, and vans.

Further, we propose targeting fleets of automobiles owned by corporations or government entities. That way, many retrofits could be performed at just a few locations. Fleet owners may also be motivated by a desire to support corporate or governmental green initiatives. However, some number of retrofits should also be performed on vehicles owned by individual consumers, exposing this process to that more demanding market segment.

Given the current difficult economic conditions, auto dealers and garage operators may well be attracted by this potential new source of revenue and be eager to participate, helping the program in its early stages.

The engineering and organizational issues involved in retrofitting on a large scale are far from trivial. The biggest problem, however, is the availability of batteries. The most suitable battery technology, which offers both a sufficient range and enough power to provide the acceleration required by today’s drivers, is the lithium-ion battery system. Current battery-manufacturing capacity is limited, and nearly all of it is dedicated to supplying batteries for the nearly 200 million laptop computers and other handheld electronic devices built each year. Making the batteries required for one million vehicles would mean doubling current manufacturing output.

There is another issue we need to consider. While there are many sources of the batteries’ raw materials—such as lithium and cobalt—battery manufacturing is almost exclusively based in China, Japan, and Korea. The reason can be found in history. When consumer-electronics manufacturing moved from the United States to Japan in the 1970s, battery manufacturing followed. Later, when laptop computers emerged, they and their portable power sources were also made in Asia. To avoid battery manufacturing becoming the next source of dependency, we have to build domestic technical and manufacturing capability. This will require large and patient investments. We can build on the technical expertise of some US universities, as well as national laboratories such as Argonne. In fact, one of the national laboratories could be placed in charge of the program. An appropriate target: by the end of the three years, making domestic sources for about half of the batteries required for this pilot program.

Another important goal is to improve the cost and quality of battery technology. Advances in material technology, experimenting with different chemicals, and the use of nanotechnology may all play a role in this. If the government makes a significant commitment to a program of electric miles, as we propose here, the venture-capital industry would likely respond to this signal. Large US high-tech companies currently on the sidelines may join as well. The overarching aim for all participants should be to develop an equivalent to Moore’s Law1 in battery technology.

The study of corporate transformations yields a valuable lesson. Whenever a business finds itself in the midst of a major upheaval, a critical situation—called a “strategic inflection point”—occurs. Leaders at such times must clearly articulate a strategy that, through transformation, aligns the capabilities of the corporation to the demands of the new environment. Only when such a match is achieved can the corporation seize the unique opportunity inflection points offer.

We are approaching the inevitable decline of oil availability—the mother of all inflection points—which gives the United States the opportunity to move into a more desirable strategic position. Today, we compete with countries whose richer natural resources give them a strategic advantage. If we shift transportation towards electric miles, we gain an opportunity to employ our own resources: newly energized governmental leadership, a tradition of high-volume manufacturing, and a culture of technological innovation. These capabilities and skills have served the United States well in the past, and the drive toward electric miles may help revitalize them. That result is every bit as important as the electric miles themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://evworld.com/forums/index.cfm?pagetype=topic&topicid=537&miscfield=2B816975200812120802

EV World Forums (12/12/08)

French Gov't Sits on Unfavorable Electric Car Report

According to the Financial Times…the Sarkozy gov't in Paris commissioned a report on 'green vehicles' that it had originally intended to release around the time of the Paris Auto Show, but because of its negative assessment of the near-term prospects for electric cars, it has sat on the report, which is, however, available for DOWNLOAD in French.

Jamie Bevor, with the Energy Saving Trust in the UK kindly provided EV World with the gist of its conclusions:

7.1. La voiture électrique est pénalisée par les performances insuffisantes des batteries

EVs penalised by insufficient battery performance

7.2. Une volonté politique forte est nécessaire pour que le véhicule électrique se développe

Strong political will is necessary for EVs to develop

7.3. Les caractéristiques techniques des batteries disponibles actuellement appellent encore des développements importants

The technical characteristics of currently available batteries still call for significant development

7.4. Le véhicule électrique pur nécessite la création préalable d'une infrastructure pour la recharge des batteries

The EV will require the development of a recharging infrastructure

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Politically inconvenient truth about electric cars

By Paul Betts and Song Jung-a

Financial Times

December 11 2008

President Nicolas Sarkozy would dearly like to end France’s rotating presidency of the European Union on a high note by brokering this week a deal on a grand European response to global warming and energy efficiency. The ultimate plan is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent with member states at the same time drawing their future energy needs from clean renewable sources by the same percentage amount. Under the circumstances, it is no surprise that the automobile industry has found itself at the heart of the climate change debate.

Indeed, Mr Sarkozy’s own government commissioned months ago one of France’s leading energy experts – Jean Syrota, the former French energy industry regulator – to draw up a report to analyse all the options for building cleaner and more efficient mass-market cars by 2030. The 129-page report was completed in September to coincide with the Paris motor show. But the government has continued to sit on it and seems reluctant to ever publish it.

Yet all those who have managed to glimpse at the document agree that it makes interesting reading. It concludes that there is not much future in the much vaunted developed of all electric-powered cars. Instead, it suggests that the traditional combustion engine powered by petrol, diesel, ethanol or new biofuels still offers the most realistic prospect of developing cleaner vehicles. Carbon emissions and fuel consumption could be cut by 30-40 per cent simply by improving the performance and efficiency of traditional engines and limiting the top speed to about 170km/hr. Even that is well above the average top speed restriction in Europe, with the notable exception of Germany. New so-called “stop and start” mechanisms can produce further 10 per cent reductions that can rise to 25-30 per cent in cities. Enhancements in car electronics as well as the development of more energy efficient tyres, such as Michelin’s new “energy saver” technology, are also expected to help reduce consumption and pollution.

Overall, the Syrota report says that adapting and improving conventional engines could enhance their efficiency by an average of 50 per cent. It also argues that new-generation hybrid cars combining conventional engines with electric propulsion could provide an interesting future alternative.

By combining electric batteries with conventional fuel-driven engines, cars could run on clean electricity for short urban trips while switching over to fuel on motorways. This would resolve one of the biggest problems facing all electric cars – the need to install costly battery recharging infrastructures.

The report warns that the overall cost of an all-electric car remains unviable at around double that of a conventional vehicle. Battery technology is still unsatisfactory, severely limiting performance both in terms of range and speed. The electricity supply for these batteries would continue to come from mostly fossil sources.

The misgivings over the future of the electric car may explain why the French government appears to have spiked the report. It probably considers it politically incorrect, especially when some of Mr Sarkozy’s big business chums such as Vincent Bolloré and Serge Dassault are developing either electric cars and lobbying hard. Renault too has struck a deal with Israel to jointly develop a mass-market electric vehicle. To paraphrase Al Gore’s documentary on climate change, Paris may feel it is not the best of times to publicise the inconvenient truth about electric cars...

world.view@ft.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ayrshirepost.net/lifestyle/motoring-car-news/2008/12/08/best-of-both-worlds-from-fisker-102545-22434311

Best of both worlds from Fisker

By Steve Hughes

Payshire Post.net

Dec 8 2008

STUNNING sports coupe is claiming economy averaging 100mpg when it arrives in Britain next year with a mission to take sales from BMW, Audi, Lexus and Mercedes-Benz.

The new Fisker Karma will be a sports-oriented model that aims to offer the best of both worlds with outstanding driving dynamics and a fuel-efficient hybrid power source.

The American newcomer is being shown for the first time in its production-ready form ahead of its debut at the North American motor show in Detroit in January.

It is then expected to be manufactured at the rate of 15,000 a year, with the first deliveries arriving next November with prices from about £60,000.

The petrol-hybrid power system is similar to that used by Lexus to endow the car with silent and ultra-economical travel when using the lithium ion batteries only but with the potential for high-performance progress when the petrol engine kicks in. [IMPORTING THE BATTERIES FROM ASIA!!]

On battery power only the range is said to be about 50 miles, at which point the petrol engine cuts in automatically and recharges the batteries, which can also be charged at home overnight.

Fisker says that for commuters with a daily round-trip of 50 miles or less, the average economy over the course of a year will be in the region of 100mpg.

When used in petrol mode there is acceleration to 60mph in 5.8 seconds and the top speed is 125mph.

Fisker Automotive chief executive Henrik Fisker, says: "I am proud to announce that we are already sold out until mid-2010."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.solid-state.com/display_news/171160/5/HOME/LG_Chem,_STMicroelectronics_to_improve_hybrid_car_batteries

LG Chem, STMicroelectronics to improve hybrid car batteries

PR Newswire (December 11, 2008)

GENEVA, Dec 11, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- STMicroelectronics (NYSE: STM), one of the world's leading semiconductor suppliers, and LG Chem, the largest Korean chemical company, have unveiled details of a new automotive battery pack that significantly extends the potential of electric and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), reducing both petrol consumption and CO2 emissions. The new battery pack combines LG Chem's lithium ion (Li-ion) battery technology and with a state-of-the-art battery management chip manufactured by ST.

Hybrid electric vehicles, which combine a conventional petrol-fueled Internal Combustion Engine with an electric-motor powered by a rechargeable battery, are becoming an increasingly important part of the automotive market because they can deliver greater fuel efficiency and reduce atmospheric pollution. Typically, today's HEVs use batteries based on Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) technology, which use simpler control circuits but are heavier and operate at lower voltages.

Li-ion batteries are widely used in portable consumer electronic equipment because they offer one of the best energy-to-weight ratios -- more than twice that of NiMH batteries -- with a very low self-discharge while not in use. However, their use in higher power applications has so far been limited because the charge/discharge cycle of Li-ion batteries must be carefully managed to protect the batteries from abuse condition. For this reason, Li-ion batteries must be combined with sophisticated and highly reliable electronic battery-management circuits in high-power applications.

The new Li-ion battery pack from LG Chem manages the charge/discharge cycle by incorporating an advanced battery-management chip, manufactured by ST, which enables safe and long-term reliability of Li-ion battery technology at affordable cost, even in applications as demanding as automotive powertrain systems.

"Accurate and reliable control of the battery charging and discharging cycles makes Li-ion technology applications the established choice for low-power consumer applications as well as a leading contender for future high-power," said Ph.D. MH Kim, the vice president of the Battery Research Institute of LG Chem. "As the world's number one supplier of power-management devices and one of the top suppliers of silicon chips to the automotive industry, ST was the natural choice to develop the silicon side of the battery pack to complement LG Chem's advanced Li-ion battery technology."

ST's battery-management chip is manufactured with the Company's proprietary BCD (Bipolar-CMOS-DMOS) technology, which combines digital logic circuits, precise analog measurement circuits and power-handling transistors in one silicon chip. A Battery Management System with these chips accurately controls the charging and discharging cycles of the battery to ensure safe operation and long battery life. Each chip can handle up to ten Li-ion cells and also includes an interface for communicating with other ST battery-management chips in a system. With this communication capability, as many as 32 battery-management chips can be connected in cascade to manage batteries that deliver up to 1600V to the electric motors.

BCD, often called smart power, is a semiconductor technology that allows ST to manufacture three fundamental components of electronic circuits on a single low-cost chip -- digital logic for high-speed computation, analog circuits for high-precision measurement and control, and power transistors that manage the flow of high electric currents. ST pioneered the technology and has led the market ever since, with its smart-power products used in high volume applications ranging from printers and fax machines to hard disk drives and the devices that manage the movement of windows and mirrors in cars.

"Reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and carbon-dioxide emissions is an integral part of ST's product development strategy," said Marco Monti, General Manager, Power Train and Safety Division, Automotive Product Group, STMicroelectronics. "We are proud that we've been able to adapt our power management and analog expertise with LG Chem to create a new solution that will enable Li-ion batteries to address increasingly higher power applications, from e-bikes to the most demanding public transport vehicles."

The LG Chem/ST solution reduces the cost and weight and increases the reliability of the Li-ion battery pack, enabling Li-ion technology to address new applications from electric scooters and bicycles to heavy trucks.

About STMicroelectronics

STMicroelectronics is a global leader in developing and delivering semiconductor solutions across the spectrum of microelectronics applications. An unrivalled combination of silicon and system expertise, manufacturing strength, Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio and strategic partners positions the Company at the forefront of System-on-Chip (SoC) technology and its products play a key role in enabling today's convergence markets. The Company's shares are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, on Euronext Paris and on the Milan Stock Exchange. In 2007, the Company's net revenues were $10 billion. Further information on ST can be found at http://www.st.com/.

SOURCE STMicroelectronics

URL: http://www.st.com www.prnewswire.com
Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

[STMicroelectronics is a franco-italian electronics and semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. While STMicroelectronics corporate headquarters and the headquarters for Europe and emerging markets, are based in Geneva, the holding company, STMicroelectronics N.V. is registered in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Manufacturing facilities… Milan and Catania Italy… Grenoble, France… Rousset, France… Tours, France… Ang Mo Kio, Singapore… Greater Noida and Bangalore, India… See: STMicroelectronics, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics ].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://seekingalpha.com/article/110754-america-must-rebuild-domestic-battery-manufacturing-infrastructure

America Must Rebuild Domestic Battery Manufacturing Infrastructure

By John Peterson

December 15, 2008

Last Thursday I briefly touched on several highpoints from a recent report by Merrill Lynch cleantech strategist Steven Milunovich, The Sixth Revolution: The Coming of Cleantech. In my closing, I suggested that if the report’s analysis is accurate and energy storage becomes a key enabling technology for the cleantech revolution, then it won’t be long before governments begin treating battery manufacturing companies as strategic national assets and adopting regulations, industrial policies and tariffs that are designed to favor their home country’s business interests. [SERVING AS DISGUISED TRADE PROTECTIONISM & PRESENTING A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT??] That observation started the mental snowball rolling downhill and I’ve spent several days pondering the question “Exactly where will all those batteries come from?” My preliminary analysis is more than a little disturbing.

Oil is a basic commodity that is consumer ready after minimal refining. The oil business can be quite profitable for resource owners, producers, refiners, distributors and employees who move petroleum products from the wellhead to the gas pump, but ancillary economic benefits to producing states are modest. Rechargeable batteries, on the other hand, are durable goods that are mainly used as components in other high-value manufactured products. This means that every battery produced creates a host of ancillary economic opportunities for the producing state.

America’s trading partners understand that exporting raw materials and components generates less economic benefit than exporting manufactured products. So while we have historically been at the front of the line when it came to buying oil from less developed countries, we will likely be pushed to the back of the line when it comes to buying batteries in bulk from countries that have or are building an industrial base. Let’s be realistic here, no self-respecting trading partner is going to sell components for products if it thinks it can sell finished products instead. Despite my unwavering support for the free flow of goods in the global market, I am not the least bit comfortable with the idea that America’s future should be subject to economic and industrial policy decisions made by foreign governments.

Most discussions of battery technology speak in terms of “battery packs” without ever describing what a battery pack is. In essence, a battery pack is nothing more than a number of individual cells that are put into a container and then hard-wired to provide the desired power characteristics. In the case of a lead-acid battery, the typical format is six cells in a rigid plastic box. In the case of NiMH and Li-ion batteries, the basic building block is the same cell you have in your mobile phone or camera. So if you want to power a laptop computer you’ll need battery pack with 12 to 16 cells; if you want to power an electric bicycle you’ll need a battery pack with 50 to 100 cells; if you want to power HEV you’ll need a battery pack with about 1,000 cells; and if you want to power an electric car you’ll need a battery pack with about 5,000 cells.

I’ve previously said that battery prices are almost meaningless in the context of a cell phone or laptop computer because battery cost is typically less than 5% of the retail purchase price. I’ve also said that battery prices will be a critical market driver in the case of an HEV that needs a $5,000 to $10,000 battery pack or an electric car that needs a $25,000 to $50,000 battery pack. While I’ve not delved into the intricate economics of a competitive market for batteries, it’s safe to say that a cell phone or laptop manufacturer will generally be less worried about battery prices than an electric bicycle manufacturer; who will generally be less worried about battery prices than an HEV manufacturer; who will generally be less worried about battery prices than an electric car manufacturer. In other words, the more you spend for the batteries that power your product, the more you worry about battery prices.

Readers who’ve been following my articles for any length of time know that I’m unrepentant critic of proposals to use NiMH and Li-ion batteries for the heavy work of powering vehicles and supporting the electric grid. I know that NiMH batteries are currently used in all of the available HEVs and I understand that Li-ion is the presumptive leader in the search for a new EV beauty queen. That knowledge, however, does not change the fact that using NiMH and Li-ion battery packs for transportation and grid support is like using 5,000 hamsters to pull a stagecoach. They may get the job done, but can we really afford to pay the price?

In my opinion, the insurmountable obstacles that will preclude the widespread use of Li-ion battery packs in electric vehicles and grid-support applications include:

· Product costs that are beyond the means of all but the most wealthy members of society;

· Cost benefit equations that only work for the mathematically challenged or emotionally committed;

· Capital intensive manufacturing infrastructure that simply doesn’t exist in the Americas;

· Intense competition for batteries that will be used in devices that have greater price flexibility;

· Reliance on manufacturers that are subject to foreign economic and industrial development policies;

· Reliance on rare and expensive raw materials that are imported from less-developed countries;

· Spotty product safety and performance histories that are improving but far from pristine;

· Product performance profiles that exceed reasonable application requirements several times over;

· Mature technology with little potential for new economies of scale or performance enhancements; and

· Unproven ability to recycle old batteries and use the recovered materials to make new batteries.

One of best parts of being an outspoken contrarian on a site like Seeking Alpha is that you get an extraordinary opportunity to hear why a host of readers believe you’re wrong.

At last count, my 22 articles had drawn something on the order of 430 reader comments, so I like to think I have a pretty fair sense of the prevailing beliefs, prejudices, expectations and misconceptions. It’s interesting but not surprising to note that people who want to promote a particular opinion, philosophy, product or equity are usually responsible for the most egregious misrepresentations. I am not an unbiased observer when it comes to battery technology, but at least I’m honest about where my personal interests might conflict with or impair my objectivity.

Benjamin Disraeli reportedly said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

In the battery industry, the most common statistical lies are based on the preposterous premise that the highest and best example of lead-acid battery technology can be found under the hood of your family car. It’s a garbage assumption that leads to garbage statistics, but it’s so insidiously reasonable sounding that people blithely accept the statistics without asking the critical question, “So how does your exotic battery chemistry compare with the best lead-acid technology?”

The following is a compendium of the cherished mythologies and incontrovertible realities that I’ve assembled from six months of reader comments.

Cherished Mythology: Lead-acid batteries are rust-belt technology.

Incontrovertible Reality: Lead-acid chemistry was ignored for almost four decades while fortunes were spent on NiMH and Li-ion research and development for portable electronics. Today, lead-acid researchers have access to materials and manufacturing methods that did not exist 40 years ago. When researchers began to evaluate the potential impact of new materials and manufacturing methods on lead-acid chemistry, the result was almost magical. The simple fact is that lead-acid batteries have advanced more in the last five years than NiMH and Li-ion batteries have since they were introduced.

Cherished Mythology: Lead-acid batteries are environmental hazards.

Incontrovertible Reality: With recycling rates approaching 99%, lead-acid batteries are the most highly recycled product on the planet and substantially all of the materials recovered through recycling can be used to make new batteries. Neither NiMH nor Li-ion chemistries can even come close to matching the natural resource efficiency and environmental safety of lead-acid batteries.

Cherished Mythology: Li-ion batteries are one-quarter of the weight of their lead-acid equivalents.

Incontrovertible Reality: The quest for safer Li-ion batteries slashed theoretical energy densities by 50% and significantly reduced the weight advantage. The recent introduction of Firefly Energy’s foam electrode technology has improved the energy density of advanced lead-acid batteries while reducing Li-ion’s weight advantage even further. Li-ion batteries still offer a modest weight advantage, but it’s ridiculous to agonize over weight in the context of a 3,000-pound car or a grid-connected power storage installation.

Cherished Mythology: NiMH and Li-ion batteries have more power than lead-acid batteries.

Incontrovertible Reality: The recent introductions of battery-supercapacitor hybrids like CSIRO’s Ultrabattery and Axion Power’s (AXPW.OB) PbC battery have improved the power profile of advanced lead-acid batteries to a level that’s competitive with NiMH and Li-ion batteries at a fraction of the cost.

Cherished Mythology: NiMH and Li-ion batteries have far longer cycle-lives than lead-acid batteries.

Incontrovertible Reality: The theoretical cycle-life of a battery is a gee-whiz number until it is compared with the needs of a specific product. If an EV will be recharged 350 times per year and the vehicle will have a 10-year useful life, anything over 3,500 cycles is waste. CSIRO’s ultrabattery technology reduces sulfation (the main cause of lead-acid battery failure) and Axion’s PbC technology eliminates the problem entirely. When development and testing of these recent innovations is fully documented, I expect the cycle-life differences between the major battery chemistries to be inconsequential.

Cherished Mythology: NiMH and Li-ion batteries will improve as the technology matures.

Incontrovertible Reality: NiMH and Li-ion batteries are already fully mature technologies. There have been big improvements in the safety of Li-ion batteries over the last 20 years, but those improvements have always come at the cost of reduced energy density. The only performance metric that keeps improving is cycle-life, which is already far too long for most real-world applications.

Cherished Mythology: NiMH and Li-ion batteries will get cheaper as demand increases.

Incontrovertible Reality: Roughly 75% of the cost of any battery is raw materials and NiMH and Li-ion batteries have been mainline industrial products for the last 20 years. Substantially all of the cost savings that can be realized have already been achieved. The only thing increased demand will do at this point is drive a relentless upward spiral in raw materials prices.

Cherished Mythology: Li-ion batteries are a silver bullet solution to energy storage problems.

Incontrovertible Reality: Li-ion batteries may well be the best storage solution for small format energy storage needs including cellular phones, power tools, portable computers, electric bicycles and hybrid scooters. Their cost effectiveness falls off dramatically when the battery pack is bigger than a breadbox. Even if Li-ion batteries could be cost effective in power-hungry applications like EVs and grid support applications, sound economics and rational industrial policies in producer states will invariably favor the production of 5,000 cell phones or 300 to 400 laptop computers over the production of a single EV.

Cherished Mythology: Plug-in electric vehicles provide a cost-effective path to a clean energy future.

Incontrovertible Reality: Plug-in electric vehicles may provide dramatic sound bites for politicians, car companies and environmentalists, but pure electric vehicles cannot be paying propositions until gas prices are far higher than they have ever been. Just this afternoon, I read that President Sarkozy is refusing to release a government-sponsored report that says EVs don’t make sense in France despite the fact that the bulk of French electric power comes from nuclear plants. The cheapest price I’ve seen reported for an EV battery is a $17,500 battery pack from Ener1 (HEV) that will power the Th!nk City, a bare bones commuter car that would likely get 50 mpg with a gasoline engine or 60 to 75 mpg with a diesel. If you depreciate the battery pack over 10 years and include 5% imputed interest on the unamortized balance, you’ll need to realize $22,313 in fuel savings to recover your hard costs. At 15,000 miles a year and 50 mpg for a similar gasoline powered car, you can’t break even on the battery unless gas costs more than $7.44 per gallon.

The Milunovich report is an exceptional work and I can’t disagree with any of his conclusions. I do, however, think he overlooked one critical issue – the rapidly accelerating rate of change. Historically, technical revolutions evolved over decades. During my lifetime, each major round of changes has evolved more rapidly than the last and been more pervasive and far-reaching. I believe the cleantech revolution will evolve far faster than anyone can imagine and while the cleantech revolution may have started in the U.S. and Europe, it has already become an unstoppable global force. We may not be ready for the tsunami of change the cleantech revolution promises, but it’s already here and our only remaining choice is to adapt or be swept away. We need to get up tomorrow morning, go to work with the toolbox we own, solve our problems as best we can and be eager to adapt new tools when they arise.

The pure play public companies that have the potential to make a meaningful difference in America’s energy storage future include Enersys (ENS), Exide Technologies (XIDE), C&D Technologies (CHP) Ultralife (ULBI), Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and ZBB Energy (ZBB). The companies that have the potential to make a difference in Asia and Europe include Advanced Battery Technology (ABAT), China BAK Batteries (CBAK), Hong Kong Highpower (HPJ), Maxwell Technologies (MXWL) and SAFT Batteries (SGPEF.PK). The rest bear watching but are too immature or overvalued for me to seriously discuss them as potential investments.

Rational industrial policy dictates that our global trading partners will want to sell us finished goods instead of bulk components. Fundamental economics dictates that products like cell phones, laptops, power tools, electric bicycles and hybrid scooters will be more responsive to battery price changes than bulk products for EVs and grid support applications. In combination, these factors lead me to the inescapable conclusion that we cannot afford to use NiMH or Li-ion technology for EVs or grid support, and even if we could the battery producing countries cannot afford to reduce their production of other battery powered products to make room for our profligate demands.

America’s ability to profit from the cleantech revolution looks bleak unless it takes immediate and decisive steps to rebuild its domestic battery manufacturing infrastructure. Dithering, debating and daydreams are no longer options.

Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International, recently bought small long positions in Exide and Enersys and may make additional storage sector investments in the future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[IS IT POSSIBLE THAT EVEN PROPOSED ELECTRIC CAR INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS IN THE U.S WOULD LARGELY BE PERFORMED BY FOREIGN (EUROPEAN COMPANIES)?]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/is-san-franciscos-ev-grid-more-than-a-dream

Is San Francisco’s E.V. Grid More Than a Dream?

By Jim Motavalli

New York Times

December 2, 2008, 2:25 pm

Nissan eRogue, an electric-vehicle conversion being used by Better Place.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, says if you spend a few minutes with Shai Agassi, founder and chief executive of Better Place, a venture-backed start-up in Palo Alto, Calif., you come away a true believer in his vision of an electric-car future.
Indeed, Mr. Agassi is quite a talker.

“What we’re envisioning here is the perfect blueprint for saving the car industry,” Mr. Agassi said recently, when he and Mr. Kennedy shared a podium with the mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland. The occasion was to announce Better Place’s latest green-car partnership and its first in the United States.

“It’s a massive infrastructure project, so it will create jobs, all the while reducing oil imports,” Mr. Agassi said. “And if we do it correctly it will dramatically cut global warming emissions.”

The plan is to build recharging stations around the Bay Area starting in 2010, which Mr. Agassi said he hopes will lead to the deployment of 100,000 electric cars by 2012.

Mr. Agassi is developing similar partnerships in Hawaii, Israel, Denmark and Australia and has raised $200 million to realize his dream of integrated charging networks for electric cars.

According to the Better Place vision, charging stations (at homes, office buildings and parking garages) will be combined with battery-swapping locations along popular routes. Drivers running out of juice can make a pit stop, swap out an empty battery with a fully charged one and be back on the road in under three minutes.

The plan for the Bay Area network includes 100 battery-swap stations, Mr. Agassi said. And there could be as many as 250,000 individual charging locations. Participants in the plan would own the cars, but not the lithium-ion batteries. They would buy into mileage plans that would give them access to charging stations and battery swapping.

At least that’s the plan, but the scenario is complicated by several factors, including that mass production of high-performance, affordable battery packs appears to be years away.

Better Place imagines a fully automated station that would carry all manufactured batteries “so that any electric vehicle with a swappable battery, regardless of make or model, can pull in and be serviced.” But a jumble of battery types from various automakers, without industry-wide standardization, could obviously turn such a plan into a nightmare.

And despite Mr. Agassi’s track record in raising money, his United States plan does require a certain leap of faith in the current economy.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the project will depend on raising $1 billion over three years “through equity from pension funds and other institutions.” Mr. Agassi says he needs $200 million to $250 million to begin installing the E.V. infrastructure in San Francisco.

Finally, there’s the question of where all the electric cars will come from.

The Better Place plan depends on the widespread rollout of battery E.V.’s, which are barely available in the market. And the 100,000-electric car target for the Bay Area is very optimistic. Better Place does not have a major automaker partner in the United States, Julie Mullins, a Better Place spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message, but talks are ongoing with most major auto companies.

Renault and Nissan has committed to building electric vehicles for Better Place’s Danish and Israeli ventures, along with E.V. grids in Oregon, Sonoma County, Calif., and Tennessee, where Nissan has its United States headquarters. And talks are continuing about San Francisco, said Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America. “We have not ruled it out,” he said. “We absolutely need infrastructure deployed for electric automobiles to be successful, and a single operator makes it easier.”

Better Place’s road show includes a Nissan Rogue converted to electric drive, but Better Place says it has no plans to get into the E.V. conversion business.

Despite the uncertainties, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, has become a cheerleader for the project. The three participating Bay Area mayors, he said, have agreed to coordinate local permitting, tax incentives and zoning practices to help the plan.

“I’m a guy who’s driving a hybrid, but I don’t feel particularly good about that,” he said. “I believe the big game-changer is electric vehicles and plug-in technology.”

Last spring, Mr. Newsom traveled to Israel, where Better Place is hoping to conduct testing in 2010 and make its plan available to the public in 2011. Some 50 parking lots in central Israel are being fitted with charging spots, Mr. Agassi said. But the infrastructure operation there is still in its early stages.

For its part, San Francisco is fully committed to “the idea that E.V.’s will replace fossil-fuel cars and trucks on the road,” said Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for the mayor. “Ultimately, the vision is to have a charging station at every parking space.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=80

In France, following on from the Kyoto protocol, the Syrota Report has just revealed that the objectives of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 4 by 2050 will only result in a reduction of 2,1 to 2,4 times their current level.

[BELOW IS A ROUGH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CHAPTER 7 OF THE REPORT]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lepoint2.com/sons/pdf/rapport-syrota-voiture-electrique.pdf

Centre d’analyse stratégique (Center of strategic analysis)

www.strategie.gouv.fr

Conseil général des mines (General Advice of the Mines)

Mission « Véhicule 2030 »

Jean SYROTA

Perspectives

28 septembre 2008

7. The electric vehicle, which with the advantage of not emitting directly polluting gas, suffers from too many handicaps to be able to claim to substitute massively for the thermal vehicle .............................................64

7.1. The electric car is penalized by the insufficient performances of batteries ....................................................................................................65

7.2. A strong political will is necessary so that the electric vehicle develop .....................................................................................................69

7.3. Features of the currently available batteries still significant developments ...........................................................................................70

7.3.1. Current dominant technologies should leave the place to technologies soon containing lithium ........................................................70

7.3.2. The stakes of the storage of electricity in the batteries lie primarily in autonomy, the time of refill, reliability and the cost .................................. 73

7.3.3. The battery lithium-ion represents the most probable option with a future for the vehicle private individual .................................................................................................76

7.4. The pure electric vehicle requires the preliminary creation of an infrastructure for the refill of the batteries …............................................. 78

…The history of auto industry shows that the electric vehicle of urban use or périurbain is a very old idea in auto industry. The electric vehicle was exceeded by the vehicle been driven by an internal combustion engine at the beginning of the XXe century. For as much, many attempts were carried out during second half of XXe century to introduce electric vehicles. The electric vehicle returns today to the mode, in a context of price of the high raw materials and fight against climate change. Until the end of the XIXe century, electricity was perceived like only driving energy able to compete with the vapor. But the autonomy very limited of the first lead-acid batteries (invented by Gaston Planted in 1839) and with the cadmium-nickel (1892) quickly promoted it electric vehicle with the only row of urban vehicle: with the gasoline long distances, electricity the short ones! (p.64)

What was true more than one century ago is always today: technically the performances limited of the batteries, their weight, their reliability, their longevity and their cost remain, in spite of made progress and to come, of very heavy handicaps. One finds the two primary reasons of the non-viability of the electric vehicle which explains the failure of the retries of the electric car of the years 1980. The electric car is always currently defined on the basis of tested concept: a simple chain of traction, not of gear box, a system of always bulky and especially heavy embarked energy (from 100 to 200 kilogrammes) which can represent up to 20% of the total weight of the vehicle, a cost representing still today half of the total costs (approximately the price of the system of battery is today equivalent to the price of a thermal vehicle of the same category); on the other hand the quasi-total absence of polluting emissions on the level of the local use (provided the devices of heating and air-conditioning do not use fuels like the LPG or the gasoline) remains, beside the silence of operation, the principal advantage of the electric vehicle. Important technological advances, such as that of the “engine-wheel” (regrouping on the level of each wheel of the functions of suspension, of damping, traction and braking) or new technologies of battery with polymeric lithium/, would be likely to improve the assessment of the electric vehicle.

… But two major uncertainties always affect the economic model of the vehicle electric: on the one hand uncertainty on the longevity of the batteries, whose cost can represent half of the total costs of the electric vehicle, on the other hand uncertainty concerning the evolution of the tax on electricity being used for the refill of the batteries.

7.1. The electric car is penalized by the insufficient performances batteries The development of the electric vehicle must surmount several obstacles: · The too limited performance of the batteries of which l' mass energy lies between 30 and approximately 200 Wh/kg, whereas the density of energy of the liquid fuels (gasoline, gas oil) exceeds 10.000 Wh/kg, which represents 50 times more than the best current accumulators. The variation of output enters an electrical motor and a thermal engine (80% - 65% in taking account of the output of the operations of load-discharge of the batteries - against 25%) is insufficient to give to the electric vehicles autonomies comparable with thermal vehicles. · Duration necessary to reload the batteries: on an ordinary socket-outlet (220 V, 15A), it takes indeed approximately 6 hours to reload an electric vehicle. (p.65)

That be explained by very the low power that delivers a standard electrical outlet (approximately 3 kw). As comparison, when one fills the tank with gasoline to a service station, the vehicle receives 50 liters in 5 minutes. The equivalent power of refill is then of 6 MW thermal or 1,5 MW useful if l' one takes account of the thermal efficiency of the engine. There is thus a factor from approximately 500 between the flow of energy of an electrical outlet and the flow of a petrol station. This difference would be reduced by the use of catches of load which deliver 35 kw, that is to say a ratio from 1 to 40 compared to a petrol station. The single one device making it possible to transfer as much from energy an electric vehicle than in the case of a thermal vehicle is the exchange of batteries, operation which is used today for wire data buses (for which the organization of volumes allows an easier handling) and which is in the course of development for the electric cars (in particular within the framework of the Renault project in Israel describes further).

· Uncertainty on the autonomy of the electric vehicles: this uncertainty is not news and is explained by the incomplete character of the standardized tests (cycle NEDC for Europe). Cycle NEDC (“New european driving cycle”) used in Europe, inter alia, to evaluate the levels of emission of the engines, corresponds to a cycle of one 20 minutes duration conduit including/understanding 4 cycles repeated of urban type (ECE-15) and a cycle of control on road (EUDC); it is supposed being representative of the usual use of a car in Europe. Other standardized tests use different cycles of homologation, the such mode “10-15” used in Japan and summarily described Ci below; this cycle, one shorter duration (12 minutes of control), includes/understands only 3 cycles of urban control and is based on a lower mean velocity downtown as on road.

These tests do not take into account the consumption of the accessories (headlights, essuieglaces, de-icing postpones…) and especially heating or the cooling of the cockpit. However the thermal management of the cockpit can very largely reduce the autonomy of an electric vehicle. The calculations carried out by the School of the mines of Paris, the ADEME and the INRETS showed that automobile air-conditioning could absorb between 1 kw (surrounding air with 25°C, temperature of instruction with 20°C) and 3 kw (surrounding air with 40°C, temperature of instruction with 20°C). Moreover, the heating in winter proves to be a large-scale consumer of energy, whose consumption is higher than air-conditioning in the case of very cold countries (case of strongly negative outside temperatures). The heating of an electric vehicle poses a specific problem because, contrary to the thermal vehicle, it does not have a free source of heat (exhaust fumes). Thus, one can note that thermal management can generate overconsumptions such as they will reduce significantly the autonomy of the vehicles. In addition to the thermal regulation of the cockpit, it is necessary to take account of all the other equipment consuming energy, which goes from the windscreen wipers to the heating of rear window, the radio, lighting. These consumers, who are not taken either into account in the traditional tests of homologation, represent on average 0,6 kw and can to reach more than 1 kw (source: Automotive Handbook, Bentley Publishers).

Thus, between the theoretical consumption of an electric vehicle, as measured on a cycle NEDC, and real consumption, one must take account of the potential impact of a whole of equipment which can require an electric output of approximately 2,5 kw in cases of use of air-conditioning and up to 4 kw under extreme conditions. (p.66)

One can analyze the impact of such overconsumptions on one electric vehicle. One takes here, as example, the case of one convey whose tests of autonomy on standardized cycle were carried out. It is about Mitsubishi i-mev, currently in test with Japan and from which marketing will begin in 2009. It acts of a small urban vehicle (in Europe this vehicle would belong to segment known as of “small town” a length included/understood between 2,5 and 3,6 m), of a mass of 1080 kg. Be driven by an engine of 47 kw of power, this vehicle has an autonomy of 160 km in cycle standardized “10-15” (Japanese standard) and is equipped with batteries of 16 kWh. Profile of the cycle of homologation “10 15” are represented opposite; one can note that it corresponds with a way of type the urban/perish-urban. Cycle Japanese homologation “10-15” The mean velocity on this cycle is of 25 km/h. That means that the vehicle i-mev requires an average power of 2,5 kw for its traction. One can thus conclude that of urban real use, the autonomy of an electric vehicle could be reduced by half, if the auxiliaries would require 2,5 kw. These calculations do not take account of possible progress which could be made on the systems of air-conditioning, the such introduction of heat pumps, or of the other improvements that the manufacturers will have to bring to their vehicles to reduce their consumption electric.

· A high cost: today the electric vehicle must support an approximately double cost of that of a conventional thermal vehicle. One of the reasons comes owing to the fact that it electric vehicle requires the introduction of a battery of great capacity (at least ten kWh) whose cost is at least of approximately 500 $/kWh, which does one of them component which counts for almost 10.000 $ in the cost price of a vehicle. By elsewhere, the technological advancements and the economies of scale related to series productions are today difficult to anticipate so much the future size of the market is dubious.

· Need for building the infrastructure necessary to the power supply of the electric vehicles. It is not a technological problem so much (catches of loads…) that a problem of investments: indeed, the electric vehicle is with urban vocation or périurbaine, and at least requires a very broad deployment of catches of refill which makes it possible users to reload their vehicle during the night but also during the day if they wish it. That would thus suppose to equip the bays parking public, the underground car parks, the garages (for those which have a house), but also more generally carparks of company, even carparks of parking places such supermarkets. Such a network of surface thus is essential and the multiplication of the terminals public with chart (subject on which currently EDF works) poses problems of influence on the ground, of safety (electrocution, ill will…) and, more largely, of standardization: a deployment of electric vehicles requires that actors as many as car manufacturers, energeticians, local government agencies define standards for the connector industry, electric meters, because each car must be able to be reloaded indifferently on any catch. One should not underestimate the difficulty of such a process: abundant examples on the wars of standards in the electronics industry (standards for the SVS, digital television, the Internet on mobile phone…) show that these processes are generally long because of the great number of implied actors. (p. 67)

· Impact dominating of the conditions of production of electricity. It is important finally to note that, if the environmental impact of the electric vehicle is very weak on its place of use (the electric vehicle could remove the downtown areas from nitrogen oxides, fine particles, noise of the cars…, the environmental real issue is upstream during the manufacture of electricity. (pp. 67-68)

Prevalence of the production nuclear in France does not have to make only forget, in the majority of the other countries with world, a significant share of electricity comes from thermo plants coal-fired, with the lignite, gas or the fuel. Many calculations make it possible to include/understand in which cases the assessment CO2 of an electric vehicle are better than that of a vehicle thermics. The following table, proposed by EDF, gives some orders of magnitude and watch that, if the total assessment is favorable in France to the electric vehicle compared to a vehicle gasoline/diesel means, it is very right for it on a European scale and it is not it on a worldwide scale any more.

This kind of comparison must however be interpreted with much prudence: · On the one hand, this comparison diesel gasoline/and electricity are not equitable because it does not take account of the differences in performances (top speed, power) between the two types of vehicles: an electric vehicle of which top speed is usually today limited to 110-120 km/h, the same use does not have as a truck with conventional propulsion being able to reach 160-250 km/h. Known as differently, a gasoline car, used like the east an electric car, would undoubtedly see its characteristics of consumption and singularly modified gas emissions. An equitable comparison would probably result in dividing about by two the emissions of the vehicles diesel gasoline/. It results from it that a thermal vehicle of small size, having a low power (thus road performances comparable with those of an electric vehicle) and a very reduced consumption would be favorable from the point of view of the CO2 emissions and could take a market share.

· In addition, these figures are completely theoretical since they do not take into account two important realities: air-conditionings consume much and the downtown areas are bottled. Indeed, the consumption of an electric vehicle is modified when air-conditioning is requested, just as the consumption of a thermal vehicle is sensitive to the level of congestion traffic.

It thus should be admitted that the balance between the two assessments does not have anything obvious (except in France where the electric one has a comparative advantage thanks to its park of hydraulic and nuclear production) and which the interest, on the plan of the total CO2 emissions, of the electric vehicle should do the object of studies much thorough. But, in any event, it appears not very probable that are produced in great quantities of the cars which would be specifically French. (pp. 68)

7.2. A strong political will is necessary so that the vehicle electric develops Today, the new context gives the topicality on the urban electric vehicles: price of the energy matters high, policies to fight against gases with greenhouse effects and local pollution, environmental standards more constraining… Qualities of a use urban of the electric vehicle explain why this option returns today on in front of scene; one can even say that it took the changing of the combustible battery and hydrogen like idea to the mode. Thus, of the technological initiatives, commercial and political are born. Forts of failures passed, the actors intervene with more a greatest caution and try to tackle the question of the infrastructures, conscious that difficulties of storage of electrical energy attach the use of the electric vehicle. The electric vehicle profits right now from an implicit incentive because of the methods of calculating of the CO2 emissions of the whole of the ranges of vehicles marketed by manufacturers: the electric vehicle being entered for zero emission, sound development artificially makes decrease the average figures of emission and its appearance in a catalogue manufacturer will enable him to respect the objectives more easily total waited as regards CO2 emission.

Only a political will strong and constant, on the level so much of the State (taxation, tariff policy of electricity) that local government agencies (financing of the infrastructures, limitations of circulation in the downtown areas, tolls urban), will be likely to cause the validation of a durable economic model so that it convey very electric finds a place in the decades to come. This place will be probably minority (the most optimistic actors speak about 15% of the park car) and limited to the urban use or périurbain, in priority in the zones with strong local environmental constraint and for captive fleets.

The State of Israel provided in 2008 a recent example of strong political initiative in the field of the electric vehicle. This experiment, which one can describe as experimentation with large scales of the electric vehicle is briefly described below.

… The project “Better places” to Israel The creation of an electric vehicle fleet in Israel where circulate a million vehicles and where 90% of the motorists carry out on average less than 70 km per day, should be born from here 2011-2012. The project “Better Place”, whose Renault is one of the principal partners, will be supported by a fiscal policy making gravitational the purchase of the vehicles: the tax with the purchase of 79% will be brought back to 10% until 2014, then to 30% as from 2019 - level of tax for the hybrid vehicles -, except if the market share of the electric vehicles reaches 20% from here 2019. The cars will be adaptations of existing models (Mégane) and would be equipped with battery lithium-ion provided by Nissan and NEC. The vehicles should have an autonomy of a hundred kilometers under local conditions of use, i.e. with a strong use of air-conditioning. The economic model is copied on that of cellular telephony since the profits will rest more on the services than on acquisition of the material. The motorist would buy his car, would rent the battery and would see himself invoicing the services of maintenance and load (the monthly expenses of batteries are estimated at 60 €). From here 2012,500 000 points of load should be installed on the territory like several hundreds of stations of exchange of the batteries. The Israeli market, once stabilized, is estimated at approximately 30.000 vehicles per annum. A similar initiative is envisaged in Denmark. (p.69)

An agreement in principle was concluded in Portugal, in order to study the conditions of feasibility of a massive deployment of electric vehicles in this country. For Israel, the fundamental motivation is above all the energy independence of the country in a particular context that one necessarily does not find in the European countries and which is at the origin of the political commitment and budgetary extremely of the government.

Certain agglomerations plan to even penalize to exclude from the centre town circulation thermal vehicles. The town of London east, for this reason, a pioneer. Only vehicles “clean”, label whose electric vehicle profits, would be authorized to penetrate on network of road infrastructure inside a definite central perimeter. The introduction of an urban toll could then support the market of the electric vehicles.

7.3. Features of the currently available batteries still call significant developments To answer the problem of autonomy, research was directed since always towards packing of energy of the batteries. The die lead, mature technology, have shown its limits. Other electrochemical couples were developed and could to support the diffusion of the electric vehicles. One generally distinguishes three families from accumulators: - accumulators in aqueous medium: acid systems (lead-acid batteries) or alkaline (cadmium-nickel; metal nickel-hydride…), - accumulators in organic medium in liquid phase (lithium-phosphate; lithium-ion: lithium salts dissolved in an organic solvent), - accumulators in polymeric medium (polymeric lithium metal). The batteries known as “hot”, in particular with mark Streaked (Swiss), have very particular characteristics because cathode (aluminium and sodium chloride) and the anode (sodium) must be maintained in the liquid state by heating approximately 300°C), the intermediate ceramics wall being used at the same time of separator and ionic driver.

7.3.1. Current dominant technologies should leave the place soon with technologies containing lithium The state of the art of technologies available or in the course of settling is very contrasted according to the nature of the electrochemical couples.

Lead-acid (Pb) The lead-acid batteries have performances limited by an important modification morphological of the active matters during the cycling which reduces the utilisation ratio of them. They have nevertheless l' d' favours; an industrial production of mass since soon a century. Their cost, definitely lower than that of other technologies, remains the principal attraction for the car manufacturers. The last Citroen C3 equipped d' a alterno-starter still uses a lead-acid battery. L' increase in the output of the active matters having jusqu' to date be a thrust, the possible improvements could come from new internal architectures (pseudo bipolar, bipolar) and new processes of implementation (compression, metal foams).

The lead-acid batteries equip today the near total with the small electric vehicles (lifting trucks, vehicles of golf, wheel chairs…), but are not very effective to provide the energy of power for road vehicles: the lead-acid batteries which currently equip the cars have more one vocation of energy reserve, specialized in storage/destocking of point. (p.70)

Cadmium-nickel (Ni-Cd) Remained a long time of the field of high technologies (aeronautical, telecommunications), batteries Ni-Cd passed to the general public field with l' tools électroportatif. They experienced in France an important development with the electric vehicles of the group PSA (Citroen AX, Sax, Peugeot 106…) then of Renault (Clio…). Considered powerful and reliable, batteries Ni-Cd suffer, according to the d' mode; use, d' a “ratchet effect” reducing the capacity usable. L' effect is however reversible and a suitable cycling makes it possible to find the initial capacity. They are the European regulations on metals heavy which condemned the use of this technology which employs great quantities of cadmium, now prohibited.

Nickel-metal hydride (Nor-MH) The toxic nature of cadmium led to the development of the couple nickel-hydride metal for traction. L' d' use; a metal hydride for the negative electrode involves a overcost but brings also a better capacity. The batteries Nor-MH tolerate less better overloads and high temperatures that batteries Ni-Cd (risk of explosion and fire). They suffer from other weak points like the difficulty in detecting the end of load, the still dubious lifespan and their price. But because of their capacity required a high power and to ensure a big number of cycles, these batteries are largely used for the hybrid applications to strong modes and weak amplitude of cycling. Panasonic developed for Toyota several d' generations; accumulators Nor-MH of power. The second d' generation; prismatic elements which equips the hybrid vehicle Prius II refers in terms of performances and reliability. Guarantee offered by manufacturer on this component is 8 years. The same type of battery equips the Honda hybrid Civic IMA. D' other manufacturers as GP Batteries offer products with performances a little less low but at a definitely lower cost. In France, the SAFT propose, at a cost still high, a range Nor-MH based on the developments of SAFT THE USA.

Lithium-ion Accumulators lithium-ion, equipped d' a negative electrode out of carbon and of a positive electrode containing cobalt oxide, were developed specifically for the automobile applications. In France, in the United States as in Japan, of the electric vehicles equipped such batteries already showed performances jusqu' then ever reached. Contrary to the preceding couples, the batteries with lithium use an electrolyte not aqueous. This constitutes an advantage by eliminating the parasitic reaction from decomposition of l' water. However, the d' formulation; an electrolyte is made delicate by a compromise difficult to realize. In addition to a conductivity raised in the range of the room temperatures, l' electrolyte made up d' a lithium salt in solution in an organic solvent must have a good chemical and thermal stability with respect to the other components of the cell. These uncertainties, not yet raised to date for batteries of big size (risk of heating even of fire), brought Toyota, contrary to its intentions, with to continue to equip its next range Prius III with batteries Nor-MH.

In France, this technology is developed by the SAFT, in Poitiers for the elements of low capacity, in Bordeaux for the elements of traction. Mainly for reasons of cost, these accumulators are aujourd' today still very little widespread. In parallel, one observes in Asia (China and Japan) a rather fast development of this technology carried by the markets of the portable and the light vehicles (two wheels and carriers). The production in great quantity will allow a fall of costs. (p.71)

Lithium-ion Phosphates L' positive electrode d' a battery lithium-ion is replaced here by a metal phosphate, generally of iron phosphate. In addition to the high performances and good behaviour in cycling of the batteries lithium-ion, this technology with l' d' favours; a better intrinsic safety and d' a reduced cost of material. In addition to their great availability, the phosphates have an excellent stability at the time of the excessive electric requests and the rises in temperature (stable jusqu' with 350°C). Because of a weaker elementary tension, l' specific energy of this couple (120 to 140 Wh/kg) is a little lower than that of the lithium-ion containing cobalt. The cyclability is as for it very high (2000 cycles with 80% of the rated capacity). As example, in the United States, the company Valence technology, based in Texas, already this d' type markets; accumulator just like company BYD in China. Tests carried out by the direction of the studies and research d' EDF confirm the announced performances.

Polymeric Lithium-metal - L' d' use; a negative metal lithium electrode made up theoretically allows capacities definitely higher than those obtained with carbon. In addition to l' d' favours; an entirely solid system (weak risk of explosion), its internal constitution, made up thin electrodes superimposed around a solid extruded polymer electrolyte allows to consider advantageous production costs; in addition one awaits packs nearly 5 times lighter than of the corresponding lead-acid batteries, an almost total recyclability in end of life and a lifespan estimated at 10 years. This type of battery requires one however operating temperature close to 80 °C to ensure a sufficient conductivity. L' major disadvantage related to l' metal lithium electrode is l' appearance, during cycling, of dendrites responsible for internal short-circuits. In France, the BatScap company, who belongs to the Bolloré group, develops this technology and acquired in March 2007 them credits of the Canadian company Avestor, which was the first to market modules of strong capacity.

Sodium - Nickel Chloride (Streaked) The basic principle of the family of batteries of the type “chloride sodium-metal” to which belonged the battery Streaked was patented in 1975 by J.Werth. Since, this technology underwent long series of improvements to reach a performance today, in terms of density of energy, twice higher than the batteries cadmium-nickel. The crucial factor for the performances and reliability is the ceramics electrolyte. This technology was specifically developed for the vehicles applications electric, heavy transport and public transport. The internal temperature of operation lies between 270°C and 350°C. The elements are locked up in an isolated box whose external walls have a temperature about 30°C. Main advantages of zebra technology are a density of high energy (120 Wh/kg) and a good output energetics. The power is on the other hand penalized by the reduced conductivity of ceramics electrolyte.

More than 200 Zebra batteries equip in Italy with the electric and hybrid Autodromo buses, of which some are in service since 1998. Irisbus chose the Zebra batteries for the very electric version of its Europolis minibus. In France, wire data buses equipped with Zebra batteries are in circulation in Lyon since the end of 2004. In the field of the utilities and light vehicles, the Zebra batteries equip with the utilities Daimler Chrysler and MicroVett. Think Nordic uses Zebra batteries for its new electric car model.

Taking into account specific energy requested, in order to always more improve autonomy, the couples with lithium or technologies of the type Zebra (Na-NiCl2) should gradually take the top on the alkaline batteries (Ni-Cd, Nor-MH), as engineering problems and economic (lifespan, safety, cost…) are on the way to be solved. (p.72)

Technology Streaked, taking into account its handicap of power and of uncertainties which always weigh on the adequacy of its operating process with private cars (temperature), appears more dedicated however to the heavier vehicles (delivery of freight, public transport…) who can much better accept one configuration of elements in parallel under case (insertion of safety members in the event of outage of part of the battery, conditions of cooling). Moreover no manufacturer announces it like die with a future for the cars “general public”. (pp. 72-73)

7.3.2. The stakes of the storage of electricity in the batteries reside primarily in autonomy, the time of refill, reliability and the cost

The characterization of a battery The electrochemical battery is the body which must answer the needs for storage, continuity and reliability of provisioning of the vehicle of electrical energy. The accumulator restores in electric form the energy produced by electrochemical reactions of oxidation or reduction to the interfaces of two electrodes separated by an electrolyte. Those yield (anode) or absorb (cathode) electrons. The released ions circulate then in the electrolyte.

Four characteristics define the technology of an accumulator: - its density of mass energy (or specific energy): expressed in Wh/kg, it corresponds to the quantity of energy stored per unit of mass; - its density of voluminal energy, in Wh/l: it indicates the quantity of energy stored per unit of volume; - its density of power: expressed in W/kg, it corresponds to the power which can to deliver a unit of mass; - its “cyclability”: expressed of number of cycles, corresponding to a load and a discharge, it characterizes the lifespan of the accumulator, that is to say the number of times where it can restore the same energy level (after each refill).

Comparison of the features of various technologies available or considered The table below summarizes the main features of the batteries used or being studied for the traction of a terrestrial vehicle. The couples metal nickel-hydride (Nor MH) and lithium-ion (Li-ion) have mass energies and energy densities much higher than those of the traditional batteries lead or cadmium-nickel (Ni-Cd). These electrochemical couples are very much used in the portable wandering apparatuses (mobile phones, laptops…). But the passage to the powers and the sizes of batteries required for the automobile motorization poses problems of operation and reliability not yet solved to date. The Zebra type, which offers an interesting energy density, has for the moment considering its development limited to the equipment of bus and heavy road vehicles. (p.73)

…One can compare the assessment of these various technologies to provide an autonomy of 100 km to a car (without use of the equipment other than the engine of traction). Calculations are carried out with a consumption-type of 150 Wh/km (what corresponds to a consumption of 50% higher than that typically carried out on a cycle of homologation by a town vehicle). (p.74)

These figures are very theoretical, because they do not hold account in private individual of the reduction in the capacity of the batteries progressively of the increase in the number of cycles carried out. (pp. 74-75)

These figures are provided as an indication, insofar as are defined neither the type of vehicle (and thus its mass), nor the standard used to measure autonomy (standard of control). This calculation provides nevertheless orders of magnitude; it shows that in one century spite of application in the car, the lead-acid batteries are too heavy to be used in hybrid vehicles or electric. Then, technology cadmium-nickel was the European directive object (2006/66/CE) which prohibited the use for the portable applications of it, because of pollution that it generates.

Necessary minima of a terrestrial electric vehicle One considers an electric vehicle corresponding to the current standard of performances (between 70 and 100 kw of power, between 80 and 110 km/h top speed). Our modes of mobilities impose that an electric vehicle - and thus its battery - offer at least the following characteristics:

an autonomy of about 200 to 300 km, is an important specific energy and a power (about 200 Wh/kg and 400 W/kg) and an energy density of 300 Wh/l to make possible the integration of the accumulator in the vehicle;
a sufficient embarked energy: from 10 to 100 kWh according to the size of the vehicle;
one 10 years lifespan is a high “cyclability” (higher than 600);
a beach of operating temperature adapted to the conditions external of use (- 40°C with more + 50°C);
a fast capacity of refill, at least partially (at least 80% of the rated capacity).

In short, one can estimate the quantity of energy to be stored according to the kilometers to traverse (necessary autonomy) and of the mass by considering a consumption from approximately 135 Wh/tonne/km and a power of 40 kW/tonne. Performance of the battery depends operation on the various bodies of the vehicle. (p.75)

In addition to the constraints of operation stated above (autonomy, time of load, lifespan), they must answer:

- with operational requirements: heating and/or cooling of the battery according to the climate of the country in which the vehicle is used;
- with constraints of manufacturing: recycling and pollution (for example batteries Ni-Cd), high cost of certain components of the battery (nickel…). (pp.75-76)

Currently, the risk would be which are marketing of the batteries which store sufficient quantities of energy, but of which the probability of explosion or fire is too high.

The technological advancements of the battery must answer the unchanged constraints since more than one century. It is thus a question of working for: - an increase in autonomy: increase in specific energy, - an increase in the lifespan of the battery: increase in the number of cycles, - a reduction of the embarked weights and volume: packing of voluminal energy and power, - a reduction of the manufacturing costs.

A roadmap of evolution of the performances, price and autonomies accessible according to technologies from batteries had been carried out by EDF in 2005. One can note on this graph which she predicted a domination of technologies containing lithium, prediction which seems about to be carried out in the intended deadlines at the time; it will be noted on the other hand that the objectives of prices announced by EDF are very generous compared to other estimates.

The comparison with the preceding tables shows all the difficulty of having access to relevant information on the costs; such an uncertainty could not be raised taking into account impossibility of obtaining precise figures near the contacted companies.

7.3.3. The battery lithium-ion represents the most probable option with a future for the particular vehicle. Among the whole of the various technological options for the storage of energy, it is the technology lithium-ion which is the subject of the most important hopes. (p.76)

It would be able, according to the majority of the experts of auto industry, to allow at the same time the development of refillable hybrid vehicles and purely electric vehicles. The table below gives an idea of the number of manufacturers having decided to apply technology Li-ion to market before 2015 of the hybrid vehicles or electric. This table, drawn up starting from information available in June 2008 in the press, does not claim to be exhaustive; it illustrates nevertheless the interest expressed by auto industry for the batteries lithium-ion.

Technology lithium-ion was already marketed masses some for small equipment. It equips the computers or cellphones today but it was never yet deployed masses some by auto industry. During the years 1990 and first half of the years 2000, this technology was the rate/rhythm object of technological advancement (measured by density of the mass and voluminal energy of the batteries) from approximately 5% per annum, and carried out productivity gains (measured by the rate of decrease of the price of these batteries) of approximately 10% per annum. (p.77)

This rapid progression made it possible the batteries with lithium to exceed the batteries Nor-MH with the beginning of the year 2000 and the price of the batteries lithium-ion, which was approximately the double of that of the batteries Nor-Mh at the end of the years 1990, was with the semi-2005 almost égal13. Thus, the technology of the batteries lithium-ion is in the course of adoption by a majority of car manufacturers, at the same time for purely electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. It is what justifies the investments on behalf of the manufacturers of batteries, to develop at the same time batteries of great capacity (for the electric vehicles and the majority of the types of refillable hybrid vehicles) and of the batteries of great power (for the hybrid vehicles). Several manufacturers of batteries (NEC, Sanyo, GS Yuasa inter alia) announced the mass production (higher than 10.000 units per annum) of batteries to lithium for electric vehicles for the beginning of the year 2010.

7.4. The pure electric vehicle requires the preliminary creation of one infrastructure for the refill of the batteries

The electric vehicle will suffer still a long time from a too reduced autonomy. The panorama of technologies of batteries lets imagine theoretical autonomies up to 200 km, with the most recent developments, but also most expensive. The hybrid vehicle refillable this problem does not have; this is why it appears as a relevant option for the vehicle of the future (one will be able to refer to chapter 8 for more precise details on the hybrid vehicles and hybrids refillable). Nevertheless, the refillable hybrid vehicle supposes to associate with the electric chain of traction a thermal chain of traction (hybrid parallel) or a thermal engine which is used as generator of electricity (hybrid series). These additions reduce the volume of the batteries necessary, but complex the vehicle compared to a very electric solution, because of the addition of various components (thermal engine, fuel tank, exhaust…).

Also, various manufacturers and equipment suppliers work on two tracks which can make possible, in theory at least, the massive adoption of electric vehicles: systems of fast refill of the batteries on the one hand, systems of fast exchange of the batteries on the other hand. Each one of these systems adds a certain complexity to the vehicle, less than that resulting from the addition of a thermal engine, but it does not reduce the volume of the batteries and it involves an heavy investment in infrastructures.

The systems of fast refill rest on the use of a very important electric output to reload the battery: typically about 50 kw, against 3 kw (median value, which vary from one country to another because of different standards) for a system resting on an ordinary electrical outlet. The systems of fast refill impose one second catch to reload the battery of the vehicle, being given the power (> 50 kw) which will have to be transmitted. Thus, for a vehicle equipped with a battery of 20 kWh (what provides theoretically approximately 150 km of autonomy to a compact vehicle), a system of fast load would make it possible to reload the battery in less than one half an hour. (p.78)

It is thus about a system which can equip advantageously certain carparks (shopping malls…) and of the service station, but which will not make it possible to make roll of the electric vehicles at distances comparable with those that can traverse the thermal vehicles: one would indeed not conceive to have to stop 30 minutes every 150-200 km to reload the battery. (pp. 78-79)

Let us note that these fast systems of refill must still be the subject of thorough studies because:

- such powers generate an overheating of the batteries, which supposes to associate with the vehicle a system to cool them;
- these fast refills have an output lower than the refills on traditional catch, which deteriorates the assessment “of the well to the wheel” of the electric vehicles;
- it is necessary to evaluate economic impact of such refills, because to propose these powers of refill will generate a overcost (infrastructure of load, design of the vehicles) and will reduce the lifespan of the batteries, therefore the economic interest of the electric vehicle;
- these systems will be useful only if they are present in great number, which supposes to find actors able to install them in preparation for a deployment of electric vehicles. That will occur only if one standard is defined and adopted by all the car manufacturers, on a relevant scale (for example European); initiatives aiming standardizing these systems and at making emerge agreements between car manufacturers, equipment suppliers, energeticians and distributors of energy are thus necessary to make this option technological credible.

The systems of exchange of batteries rest on the substitution of a battery charged for an empty battery. They are of the interest to be able, in theory, to remove the problem of the duration of the refill. It is indeed possible to conceive stations of exchanges of batteries which make it possible to substitute the batteries of a car in a few minutes by means of robots manipulators (similar to those used in the factories of assembly). Their introduction supposes nevertheless an infrastructure of which the density would be comparable with that of the service station current, made up of stations of exchange having a stock plug of batteries charged. It also supposes a thorough standardization of the batteries, because such systems would lose any interest if each car manufacturer equipped his vehicles with batteries of forms and connections incompatible with those of its competitors. Lastly, it supposes obviously that manufacturers are ready to integrate this constraint in the design of their vehicles and that actors having important capital are ready to invest in the construction of such a network of stations (the cost of a station of exchange of battery could amount to several million euros).

An experimentation on a country scale small (Israel, Denmark) should take place as of the beginning of the year 2010 (one will be able to refer to framed on the project “Better Place” at the beginning of this chapter). It will make it possible to judge relevance of such a system, its acceptability by the motorists, the negative image of car manufacturers, energeticians or other service providers to impose this solution.

8. Thermal/electric hybridization represents a tempting compromise; the refillable hybrid on the network undoubtedly constitutes the solution with a future… (p.79)

Hey, Yvo de Boer - Don't You Cry No More, No More, No More, No More, Cause Poznan Ain't Go'in Your Way!

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:52:00 +0000

[The title to this blog entry was inspired by the 1961 hit song written by R&B artist Percy Mayfield and recorded by singer, pianist Ray Charles, entitled Hit the Road Jack, the lyrics of which are accessible at: http://www.pause.pquebec.com/chansons/hit-the-road-jack.htm ].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy

Climate Change Experts 'Lose Faith' in Renewable Technology: Specialists Less Optimistic that Wind, Solar and Hydro Power Have 'High Potential' to Solve Climate Crisis, Survey Shows

By David Adam

Guardian.co.uk

December 9, 2008

Support for renewable energy technology to fight global warming is weakening in the face of worldwide economic problems and the true scale of the carbon reductions required, a survey published today has suggested.

Figures presented at the UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland, show that climate experts have less faith in alternative energy than they did 12 months ago.

The survey shows less support for wind energy, solar power, biofuels, biomass and hydrogen energy as technologies with "high potential" to reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere over the next 25 years.

There was also less support for carbon capture and storage, new nuclear build, small-scale hydropower and natural gas stations as viable ways to hit targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Eric Whan of Globescan, which carried out the survey of "climate decision makers", said: "As the climate crisis deepens they could be becoming less optimistic that individual technologies may be able to solve the problem."

The survey, supported by groups including the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme and the Pew Centre for Global Climate Change, questioned 1,000 senior figures across governments, pressure groups and companies in 115 countries over the last few weeks.

Almost three-quarters of the experts agreed in the survey that "equitable economic growth and development and significant progress in combating climate change can be achieved at the same time".

Asked to rate the likely success of low-carbon technologies in the mid-term, they showed less confidence than a similar survey 12 months ago. Support for offshore wind farms, the bedrock for ambitious UK renewable energy plans, was down to 61%, from 65% last year. Solar electricity generation was rated as having high-potential by 66% of respondents, down from 74%. Support for hydrogen power was 32%, down from 36% in 2007.

The respondents also warned that a deep recession would make a new global deal on climate harder to achieve. Some 44% agreed that the current economic crisis will significantly delay or compromise the "achievement of effective climate change agreements".

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate secretariat, said the Poznan talks were edging towards an agreement on how rich countries could pay to help developing nations adapt to the effects of climate change. "On adaptation I would say the glass is two-thirds full," he said.

But he said this week's talks were unlikely to agree a long-term goal for overall carbon reductions by 2050.

The Poznan negotiations aim to set the stage for a new global treaty of climate change to succeed the Kyoto protocol to be agreed in Copenhagen at a meeting this time next year.

De Boer said: "We're at a very important moment in time, and at a very important moment of political stock taking."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jL0vuFFbIJc6x1-K80SXaQ7u__6w

UN climate chief downbeat about a complete deal for 2009

Agence France Presse

December 9, 2008

POZNAN, Poland (AFP) — The UN's climate chief on Tuesday sounded caution over hopes that a new treaty to tackle global warming would be fully wrapped up by the end of 2009.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said it was possible only "the key political issues" would be nailed down by this deadline and further talks would be needed to complete the details of the accord.

"We won't see a fully elaborated, long-term agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. It won't be feasible," de Boer told a press conference here.

More than 10,000 delegates have gathered in Poznan for the December 1-12 UNFCCC meeting, which aims to advance towards a treaty taking effect from the end of 2012, when provisions expire under Kyoto Protocol.

According to the so-called Bali Roadmap, endorsed by the 192-member UNFCCC conference in Indonesia last year, the new accord should be completed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

"We should be careful not to reach too far and achieve nothing," de Boer said on Tuesday ahead of a ministerial-level phase of the talks, taking place Thursday and Friday.

"What we need to achieve in Copenhagen is clarity on the key political issues, so that everything after Copenhagen is about settling the details rather than negotiating the fundamentals," he said.

The highly technical negotiations in Poznan are mired in discord over how to share out the commitments and costs of cutting carbon pollution that stokes global warming.

Rich countries acknowledge their historical role in pushing up global temperatures.

But they say rapidly emerging economies -- including major CO2 emitters such as China and India -- must also take quantifiable action.

Developing and poorer nations argue the industrialised world should lead by example, and foot the bill for clean-energy technology and coping with global warming's inevitable impacts.

"We do have to have numbers on the table from industrialised countries otherwise the other dominoes won't fall," de Boer said.

"And it's clear that you politically also need some form of engagement by major developing countries. What form that commitment will take, what shape it will have and how it will be stated, is not clear to me at the moment".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-502563/Floods-tears-climate-change-hard-man-breaks-summit.html

Floods of tears as climate change 'hard man' breaks down at summit

By MARTIN DELGADO

UK Daily Mail Online

December 2007

He is known as the "hard man" of climate-change negotiation.

But after 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer.

As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.

The crying Dutchman: Emotion overwhelms Yvo de Boer

[WHAT IS IT WITH DUTCHMEN??

1) HERE, IN THIS VENUE, WE HAVE THE EMOTIONAL 'CRYING DUTCHMAN'.

2) WITH REGARD TO EU CHEMICALS TRADE & REGULATORY POLICY, WE HAVE HAD THE PERIPATETIC 'FLYING DUTCHMAN'. See: Lawrence A. Kogan, Beware of the Flying Dutchman When Traveling to Brussels, ITSSD (Aug. 2006) at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/Beware-Flying-DutchmanIII.pdf .

3) AND, FINALLY, AS CONCERNS EU FOOD SAFETY & TRADE POLICY, WE HAVE HAD THE 'INSULTED' DUTCHMAN. See: Tony Van der haegen, EU View of Precautionary Principle in Food Safety, Presentation at American Branch of the International Law Association (Oct. 23-24, 2003) at: http://eurunion.org/eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2285&Itemid=151 ].

Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could "plunge the world into conflict".

Officials from China, which feels Western countries should do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, accused UN negotiators of ignoring conference protocol.

Mr de Boer, distinctively dressed in a floral shirt, stepped up to the microphone to defend his staff - only to find that the words would no longer come.

As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause.

"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer.

"Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."

Mr. de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.

[WAS DE BOER MERELY HAVING A 'HILLARY CRYING MOMENT'?? See, e.g., Maureen Dowd, Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?, Op-ed, New York Times (1/8/08) at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html.]

The European Union went to the conference demanding that industrialised nations commit to cuts in CO2 emissions of 25-40 per cent by 2020, a stance which was strongly opposed by the US, Canada and Japan.

America's representatives had also been jeered for insisting on firmer commitments from developing countries --despite President Bush's refusal to sign up to the previous targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

In the end, a compromise was reached with a text that did not mention specific targets but acknowledged that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required".

A wave of relief swept the hall as US delegation chief Paula Dobriansky finally declared: "The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together.

"With that, Mr Chairman, let me say to you we will go forward and join consensus."

The resulting treaty, known as the "Bali road map", sets in motion a two-year process of negotiations designed to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under the deal, a new pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.

By then, members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - the organisation of which de Boer is executive secretary - should have agreed on a comprehensive plan involving wealthy and developing nations.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown sounded a note of caution. "The Bali road map agreed today is just the first step," he said. "Now begins the hardest work."

The deal will come as a relief to Mr de Boer, who is known in the Netherlands for his passionate advocacy on the subject.

His reputation as an incisive --and tireless - negotiator has earned him the "hard man" tag.

However, former colleagues said his behaviour in Bali was not entirely out of character.

[BESIDES EMOTIONAL BREAKDOWNS, DOES DE BOER ALSO HAVE 'DENNIS-THE-MENACE'-LIKE TANTRUMS??]

Political adviser Matthijs Spits said: "We Dutch can become quite emotional -- suprisingly so for other nations who think we are cold."

How Many New Obama Administration-Created American Jobs Will it Take to Change an Imported Chinese Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb?

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:09:00 +0000

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16258.html

Breaking: Obama unveils 21st Century New Deal

By Mike Allen & Jonathan Martin

Politico

12/6/08

President-elect Barack Obama added sweep and meat to his economic agenda on Saturday, pledging the largest new investment in roads and bridges since President Dwight D. Eisenhower built the Interstate system in the late 1950s, and tying his key initiatives – education, energy, health care –back to jobs in a package that has the makings of a smaller and modern version of FDR's New Deal marriage of job creation with infrastructure upgrades.

The president-elect also said for the first time that he will “launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen.”

“We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms,” he said in the address.

The president-elect is bringing new elements of his domestic agenda into his economic recovery plan, committing to a path toward giving every American access to an electronic medical record as part of an “economic recovery plan ... that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives.”

Obama had talked in the campaign about lowering health care costs by investing in electronic information technology systems, but not in the context of the economy.

Now, his key initiatives – education, energy, health care – are all being tied back to jobs.

[???]

“When Congress reconvenes in January, I look forward to working with them to pass a plan immediately,” Obama says in the address. “We need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least two and a half million jobs so that the nearly two million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future. And that’s exactly what I intend to do as president of the United States.”

Obama had committed just before Thanksgiving to saving or creating 2.5 million jobs in the next two years, more than twice his campaign promise of 1 million new jobs over an unspecified period. But he didn’t say how he would do it. On Saturday, he began to spell it out, offering "five key parts" of his economic plan:

[SHALL WE REMIND PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC OF HIS PRIOR CAMPAIGN PLEDGE TO CREATE 5 MILLION NEW ‘GREEN COLLAR JOBS’, WHICH HE HAS SINCE STEPPED BACK FROM AND PERHAPS RECONSIDERED ??].

[See: How QUIXOTIC - US 'Green Collar Jobs' Now Include Servicing 'Outsourced' Manufactured Windmill IMports!!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-quixotic-us-green-collar-jobs-now.html; How Can Obama Deliver Millions of U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' Renewable Energy (Wind) Manufacturing Jobs If They Are Mostly Owned/Outsourced By/To Europe?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-us.html ; How Can Obama Deliver Millions of 'GREEN COLLAR' Jobs If Most Windmill Manufacturing Jobs Will be Outsourced to China and India?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-green.html ; How Can Obama Deliver Millions of Low Paying and Low-Skilled Green Collar Jobs to Americans If They Can Easily Be Given to Illegal Immigrants?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-low.html ].

—ENERGY: “[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs.[???] That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work”… [???]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://obamajokeshq.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-lightbulb-jokes.html
http://www.eyrie.org/~thad/strange/lightbulbs.html
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/011141.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006050131664

[THE JOKE OF IT:]

How Many ______ Does it Take to Change or Screw in a Lightbulb??

1) Q: How many senior Presidential Aides does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. They're supposed to keep the President in the dark.

A: One: to award a billion dollar sole-source contract with Halliburton to replace it.

A: Thirty-eight: One to say that no one could have foreseen the bulb's burning out, one to spin stories for newspapers that the President's bulb-changing program is working well, and thirty-five to go out on talk shows to accuse the Democrats of being weak on light, and one to deny rumors that it's still dark in there.

A: Sixty: thirty to bribe staffers to write letters telling everyone how wonderful it is to sit in the dark, and thirty more to bribe newspaper editors to publish those letters.

A: The Administration will defend its policy of warrant-less surveillance of all Americans suspected of supporting foreign terrorist bulbs entering this country.

2) Q: How many presidential campaign staff does it need to change a light bulb?

A: 220! One to write a speech about how good it will be when the bulb is actually changed, one to write a speech about why the other candidates can't even spell "lightbulbe", eighteen to find out what the other candidates did when the lightbulb failed, and another two hundred to find out what the other candidate's families think about lightbulbs, bulbs, pear-shaped objects, light in general, any form of energy.

3) Q: How many US Presidents does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None, the constitution says that only Congress can screw in light bulbs, so only Congress is responsible for the dark, which is why we need a Constitutional amendment.

A: Only one. If he can handle 250000000 people a day I think he can handle screwing one extra lightbulb.

4) Q: How many Obama supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: "[Like Obama,] That's not funny!".

A: None. President Obama will turn all the burned-out lightbulbs back on after he heals the sick and lowers the oceans.

A: At least 1000. One to turn the bulb and 999 MSM reporters to write how brilliant he was to come up with the idea.

A: None. Under the Obama administration, we will move on to a more progressive source of light; candles.

A: None. Obama supporters proclaim that both the nation and the light bulb are ready for change, but none of them have the experience necessary to change anything.

A: None. If the light bulb needs replacing, then the room must currently be black from the burned out bulb. Just what is wrong with a black room? Are you a racist?

A: It takes exactly TWO Obama supporters to change a light bulb: one to mix the Apple-tinis and the other to call an electrician.

A: One, if it's a "typical" white-bulb; Three--one changes bulb, 2 cling each to gun & religion; One, if you let me finish my waffle; One--if this is a rapid pull-out of deployed bulbs; Ahhh-i'll have Jesse do it; One preacher--but G-d---that bulb & America.

A: Obama was against installing the lightbulb there in the first place. But if the lightbulb is going to be replaced, we need to define a timeline to have it replaced, otherwise it will never happen. We need to be as careful taking the lightbulb out as we were careless in installing it.

A: One--and another 10,000 in taxes for universal bulb care.

A: First, we need to form a committee to explore if the light bulb actually needs to be changed. Just because the bulb isn't as bright as the other bulbs isn't necessarily the bulb's fault and besides, who are we to make judgements regarding if a light bulb should be light or dark....making judgements makes you a racist!

Then we form a task force to explore how much federal money should be given to various state agencies with adaquate federal oversight to ensure that all light bulbs that want to be changed should be changed, but only after ascertaining if the light bulb actually wants to be changed. This will be accomplished through public input from various groups supported by taxpayer dollars.

After giving the money to the states to ensure all light bulbs have had adaquate training in how to survive if you want to remain dark, the states will grant the cities the money to form a governmental agency in charge of changing light bulbs. The way to handle that would be to form an oversight committee to ensure that some backwoods town just doesn't go around changing any old light bulb that they deem to be dark! The state will form legal monopolies to make sure that the bulbs are changed with the utmost safety in mind. This will not be paid for by public funds, but will be paid for by imposing a 50% tax hike on all light bulbs. That way, only the manufacturer pays to dispose of the bulb, not the public.

5) Q: How many Barack Obamas does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. Barack simply hopes, and the light bulb changes itself.

A: None. He just glows with enthusiasm and lights up the room.

A: None. He just gushes about hope and the mainstream media stumble all over themselves to change it for him.

6) Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; it's condition is improving every day. Any reports of it's lack of incandescence are totally unfounded, and the result of delusional "spin" assaults from the fanatic, elitist, liberal media. That light bulb has served honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect and dims it's ego.
Why do you hate freedom?

7) Q: How many politicians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Two. One to change it, and another one to change it back again.

A: Four, one to change it and the other three to deny it.

8) Q: How many MP's does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Twenty-one. One to change it and twenty to form a fact-finding committee to learn more about how it's done.

9) Q: How many Conservative economists does it take to change a lightbulb ?

A: None. The invisible hand does it.

A: None. "There is no need to change the lightbulb. All the conditions for illumination are in place. Recent surveys show growing confidence in the lightbulb lighting up again."

A: None, because, look! It's getting brighter! It's definitely getting brighter !!!

10) Q: How many Liberal Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: None. "Well it's not really a question of should we change it or should we not change the lightbulb, but more a question of...(blah blah waffle)"

11) Q: How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: One liberal and twenty eight delegates representing all the social, economic, and ethnic communities.

A: Two-one to do it and the other to keep the first one's knee from jerking.

A: None: They can't remove the old ones since they are already part of the environment.

12) Q: How many bureaucrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Two. One to assure everyone that everything possible is being done while the other screws the bulb into the water faucet.

A: Five - one to change the light bulb and the other four to fill out the Environmental Impact Statement.

A: One to spot the burned-out bulb, his supervisor to authorize a requisition, a requisition typist, twelve clerks to file the requisition copies, a mail clerk to deliver the requisition to the purchasing department, a purchasing agent to order the bulb, a clerk to forward the purchasing order, a clerk to mail-order a receiving clerk to receive the bulb....

A: Seven-- one to supervise, one to arrange for the electricity to be shut off, one to make sure that safety and quality standards are maintained, one to monitor compliance with local, state, and federal regulations, one to manage personnel relations, one to fill out the paperwork and one to screw the light bulb into the water faucet.

A: Two - one to screw it in and one to screw it up.

A: Just one. But she gets promoted three times before she finally finishes screwing it up.

A: None, we contract out for things like that.

13) Q: How many safety inspectors does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Four. One to change it and three to hold the ladder.

14) Q: How many Quality managers does it take to change a lightbulb ?

A: We've formed a quality circle to study the problem of why lightbulbs burn out and to determine the best thing we as managers can do to enable lightbulbs to work smarter, not harder.

15) Q: How many admin assistants does it take to change a lightbulb ?

A: None. I can't do anything unless you complete a lightbulb design change request form.

16) Q: How many civil servants does it take to change the light bulb?

A: 45. One to change the bulb, and 44 to do the paperwork.

17) Q: How many Federal employees does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: Sorry, that item has been cut from the budget!

18) Q. How many Mexicans does it take to change a light bulb?

A. Just one, but he brings about fifteen of his relatives anyway.

19) Q. How many Socialist Workers Party members does it take to change lightbulb?

A. Four. One to change the bulb, one to write about it for "the paper", one to sell you "the paper" and another to follow you home and ask why you weren't at the bulb changing, if you plan to make the next one and if you were still as committed.

20) Q: How many socialists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: One to petition the Ministry of Light for a bulb, fifty to establish the state production quota, two hundred militia to force the factory unions to allow production of the bulb, and one to surreptitiously dial an '800' number to order an American light bulb.

[THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE, IF FUTURE AMERICAN UNION MEMBERSHIP IS OPENED UP TO PRIMATES. IN EUROPE, THIS IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY!!]

[See: Austria: Activists Ask European Human Rights Court to Declare Chimpanzee a 'Person', International Herald Tribune (May 21, 2008) at: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/21/europe/EU-GEN-Austria-Chimp-Challenge.php ].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT REALLY THAT FUNNY].

How GE Is Plugging Into the Green Movement to Move Jobs and Advanced Technology to China

ScrewThat Bulb.org

Save the environment … or save a U.S. job? That’s the choice General Electric is forcing on U.S. consumers and its own workers.

GE is promoting new, energy saving light bulbs known as compact fluorescents, or CFLs. These bulbs last longer and use less energy than the typical incandescent bulbs found in most U.S. homes – but can cost up to 10 times the price.

GE is asking consumers and its employees to sign a pledge to “go green” and start purchasing the CFL light bulbs, which are imported from China. The problem is that each pledge leads to the loss of jobs in U.S. lighting plants. GE is actually asking workers in its lighting plants to pledge to put themselves out of a job!

As a company, General Electric is synonymous with the light bulb: Thomas Edison’s incandescent bulbs built GE into the global corporation it is today. But if GE has its way, it will no longer manufacture light bulbs in the United States. Since 1980, employment in GE lighting has dropped by 68%. If everyone switched to the Chinese-made CFL bulbs, all U.S. plants would close.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. The growth of “environmentally sustainable technology” was supposed to be a breakthrough on par with the discovery of incandescent bulbs. Green manufacturing was supposed to stimulate our economy, not lead to further deindustrialization. Cutting-edge products like the CFLs should lead to more jobs and profits. GE is making the profits … but it is sending the jobs to China, a country known for exploiting workers and polluting the environment.

GE supported a European Commission ban on Chinese-made CFLs … so CFLs bought in Europe are manufactured in Europe. But GE is refusing to invest in advanced technology for its U.S. plants so workers here can have a future too.

Please join with us, the workers at GE lighting, to ask GE to manufacture green in U.S. plants, so we all can benefit. We shouldn’t have to choose between a clean environment or a pink slip for American workers. Sign our petition today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/business/26interview.html

Seeking a More Flattering Light on, and From, Bulbs

By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH

New York Times

January 26, 2008

SOME 26 years ago, when Robert Pai joined Sylvania’s fluorescent technology laboratories, he and his fellow researchers did not think much about compact fluorescents. They were more interested in solving problems with mercury and ballast, and otherwise making big industrial fluorescent lamps more efficient and safer for the environment. Much has happened since. Sylvania is now part of Osram Sylvania, a unit of the German company Siemens. Dr. Pai — he has a doctorate in physics — is heading compact fluorescent research. And compact fluorescents, usually called C.F.L.’s, are definitely on researchers’ minds.

In a recent conversation, Dr. Pai, who is retiring this month, explained why some of the problems with compact fluorescents — they do not work with dimmer switches, they still use mercury and they make people and objects look weird — remain intractable. But he expressed optimism about the industry’s chances of developing light bulbs that please environmentalists, energy conservationists and finicky consumers in time to meet the efficiency standards that Congress has mandated for 2012. Excerpts from the interview follow:

Q. Despite all the hoopla surrounding them, compact fluorescents are still not big sellers. Isn’t it time to pursue light-emitting diodes, or some other answer to light bulb efficiency?

A. We’re all looking at L.E.D.’s and other technologies. But we really are making progress with C.F.L.’s, too. We’ve got programs to address the problem with dimmers.

We’ve been testing a new bulb that looks promising in terms of consumer acceptance for the quality of the light. But I admit, people who are extremely color-conscious will have to wait another few years before they can happily leave incandescents

Q. The common perception is that people who are even mildly color-conscious must avoid compact fluorescents. Why is that?

A. The fact that you’re even asking the question means this industry has not done a good job of advertising the strides we’ve made in quality of light.

Q. What about quality, period? Compact fluorescents are supposed to last much longer than incandescents, but I’ve heard lots of complaints from people whose C.F.L.’s burned out quickly.

A. All of the big manufacturers make their bulbs in China, and we do, too. But we have Sylvania people there whose full-time job is to ensure that vendors are maintaining product quality. We are confident that our 10,000-hour lamp will last 10,000 hours. The problem, though, is that anybody can import C.F.L.’s from China, which means there’s an awful lot of unbranded and untested product in the stores.

Q. Can you explain in layman’s terms why you cannot eliminate mercury and ballast from compact fluorescents, and why they shed harsh light?

A. Generating light is a function of vapor pressure. Too little vapor, and most of the energy goes to heat the lamp. Too much vapor, and the light gets trapped and degenerates into heat. Mercury is still the only substance that yields just enough vapor pressure to shed light efficiently without having to heat the lamp.

Ballast, which is what converts electrical power into a form that can be used by the lamp, poses a different problem. We’ve had experimental lamps that could operate with electricity that comes directly from the wall outlet. But when the current or the temperature deviated even slightly, the lamp exploded.

And as for the light — think of a blacksmith heating up a horseshoe. First it glows red, then orange, then as it gets hotter, it glows blue and white. Compact fluorescents do get hot, particularly in enclosed fixtures, and that’s why they shed that bluish-white light. We need to find ways to add more red to the spectrum.

Q. What are the relative pluses and minuses of the different kinds of light sources?

A. Incandescents are still the simplest technology. You throw some electricity into a filament and it lights up. And they offer full-spectrum color. But about 95 percent of the energy is wasted as heat, and making them more efficient would also make them much more expensive. Halogen lamps, common for automotive headlights or spotlights in retail displays, are a bit more efficient, but they’re also more expensive.

C.F.L.’s are extremely efficient, and cheaper to operate over their lifetime. But the color just isn’t the same as incandescents, they don’t work well for spot lighting and for now they don’t work with dimmer switches.

Most of the research is aimed at L.E.D.’s. They generate many colors of light and they are very efficient. But for now, they have big downsides, too. It is expensive to dissipate their heat, and they become less efficient if you diffuse the light over a wide area.

Q. Are any of those problems close to being solved?

A. I don’t expect much change in the immediate future. But I’ll bet that anything I say now will be out of date 5 or 10 years down the road.

Q. I understand you are retiring to Florida. How will you light your new home?

A. The place we’re moving to has all kinds of dimmers, so I’m going to have to negotiate with my wife about taking some of them out. But I guess I won’t be using C.F.L.’s in places like the dining room until the dimmer problem is solved. And I figure, eventually we’ll all convert to L.E.D.’s. But my crystal ball is not good enough to say when.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT ENERGY SAVER LIGHT BULBS!

Only Made in China!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqrCij6CbHA&feature=related

Compact Florescent Light Bulbs: The Truth – They’re Dangerous!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/business/bulb.php

EU formally approves one-year extension of Chinese light-bulb duties

Bloomberg News, Reuters

October 15, 2007

LUXEMBOURG: The European Union formally approved a one-year extension of anti-dumping duties on imports of Chinese energy-saving light bulbs on Monday, despite protests from environmentalists, leading companies and several EU capitals.

The move gives Osram, a unit of Siemens of Germany, more time to prepare for stiffer competition in a case that split European providers of the bulbs.

The continuation of the duties of up to 66.1 percent on the bulbs from producers in China - plus smaller exporters in Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines - was approved by EU foreign ministers, Portugal, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said. The extension was first reported this summer, when a European official told the International Herald Tribune that it was a compromise aimed at avoiding a split in the European Commission.

Environmental groups have criticized the extension, saying it undermines EU efforts to save energy and be a leader in the fight against climate change. The EU did not renew the duties for the traditional five years because producers in the EU like Philips Electronics of the Netherlands say the trade protections reduce demand for energy-efficient lighting.

"It is in the short-term interest" of the European Union "to continue the measures for a further adjustment period," the EU said. "After this, the likely negative effects on consumers and other operators would be disproportionate to the benefits."

The light bulbs, known as integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps, are among about 40 products from China that face EU tariffs meant to shield European manufacturers from below-cost - or "dumped" - imports.

Two other companies with EU presence, General Electric and Havells Sylvania, also backed an end to the duties, leaving Osram as the only major European producer that wanted to prolong them. Osram, which makes energy-saving bulbs in Germany and Slovakia, said the longer protection was justified by the need to uphold rules on fair trade.

Traditional incandescent light bulbs use five times more electricity than energy-saving bulbs, which cost more in stores. In the EU, about 2.1 billion incandescent household light bulbs are sold annually, and energy-saving bulbs account for 10 percent to 15 percent of the total market, which also includes halogen bulbs, according to Philips.

Philips, which imports large amounts of the energy-saving bulbs, and the Swedish retailer Ikea, supplier of about a fifth of EU demand, opposed any extension. The Italian lighting company Targetti is headed to court to fight the extension and seek reimbursement for duties paid since 2001.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119153000588749258.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

No more innovation light bulbs!

Endless Innovation Blog

October 9, 2008

If you're like me, you're sick to the point of exhaustion of seeing the traditional light bulb being used as a symbol of innovation. There are light bulbs everywhere you look -- on the covers of innovation books, on the covers of business magazines, as graphical icons on blogs, and as corporate logos for innovation software companies. Isn't it time we got rid of the light bulb as a symbol of "innovation"? Especially since more people are turning to CFLs instead of traditional light bulbs anyway.

Anyway, this article in the Wall Street Journal was the tipping point: GE Will Speed Contraction of Incandescent Bulb Business. That's right -- the traditional light bulb business is slowly dying as the result of more people turning to energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly CFL bulbs. The very company that gave birth to the light bulb is scaling back its light bulb business:

"General Electric Co. will accelerate the shrinking of its 128-year-old incandescent light-bulb business in response to global pressure to switch to energy-efficient lighting. GE said it will close seven of the 54 plants and warehouses that serve its incandescent-bulb business by November 2008 and lay off 1,400 workers. Over two years, GE will have eliminated 16% of its lighting work force. GE previously laid off 3,000 workers in the unit."

That being said, what do you think should become the new symbol of innovation?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/01/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-come.html

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Come From China

Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy

January 28, 2008

China-born Ellis Yan, right, 53, owns Shanghai, China-based TCP Inc, the largest manufacturer of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs sold in the U.S. About 200 million CFL bulbs were sold in 2006 and TCP provided 70% of those bulbs. GE and Sylvania are gearing up to compete with TCP and currently resell TCP bulbs under their names. TCP is currently the main supplier of CFLs to Home Depot and Wal-Mart. TCP has 3,000 employees.

Two big events have helped in the advancement of CFLs. One was the electricity crisis in California in 2001, which led to a huge conservation push that included replacing light bulbs. Second is the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007, which phases out traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Mercury is a concern in CFLs. About five milligrams of mercury are used in the typical bulb. A tiny amount of mercury is heated until it turns into gas that reacts with other gases to produce light. Mercury is toxic.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/10/05/cfls_and_ohio

GE to Ohio: Turn off your light-bulb factories

By Andrew Leonard

How the World Works

Salon.com

Oct. 05, 2007 Environmentalists often tout the theory that investing in forward-looking energy-efficient technologies is a smart way for U.S. companies to create domestic jobs and carve out a competitive niche in the global economy of the future. But it doesn't necessarily have to work out that way. On Thursday, General Electric, citing the fact that sales of incandescent bulbs are declining by about 10 percent a year, announced that it was closing seven lighting manufacturing facilities in North and South America.

Six of those plants are in Ohio. The vast majority of the compact fluorescent light bulbs that are replacing incandescents are manufactured in China. A union-led campaign launched in March argues that GE should invest in new lighting technologies in the United States, but GE claims that to manufacture CFLs in the U.S. would require adding 50 cents to the price of each bulb.

(At Screwthatbulb.org, a site created by the Communications Workers of America, the union claims that the European Commission banned Chinese-manufactured CFLs, but that assertion is not correct. There is a steep tariff on Chinese CFLs in the EU, but even so, two-thirds of the CFLs sold in Europe are made in China.)

A story in the Youngstown, Ohio, Vindicator covering the closing of two local plants serves as a minor elegy for every factory forced to close by the pressures of globalization.

GE said Thursday the Austintown Products Plant and Niles Glass Plant are to be shut down Nov. 1, 2008, with production shipped to foreign plants or outside suppliers....

The Austintown plant, which has 73 workers, is one of three plants that make filaments for incandescent bulbs. [A spokesman for GE] said production volumes for these bulbs are down, so the company now can fill all of its orders at the other plants, which are in Mexico and Hungary....

So, yet another paradox that may not bear too much pondering, if one wants to make it through the day. Replacing your incandescents with CFLs will cut your electricity bill, there's little doubt about that, but it will also contribute to job loss in Ohio, and the likely increase of industrial pollution in China.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-6IqCKWAzfrLlzHFAL37elhA-?cq=1&tag=general.electric

GE: Here's a bright idea: How 'bout American-made compact fluorescents?

Yahoo 360 Beta

(10/4/07)

China has been in the news lately with pet food and toy scares that have prompted legislation such as HR 3610 which would tighten import controls regarding safety. There have also been bills aimed at China's currency practices which Congress thinks contributes to our balance of trade deficit.

A Senate Banking bill (S 1677 ) seeks to strengthen the definition of currency “manipulator” to make it tougher for Treasury to avoid giving that label to China. A Finance bill ( S 1607 --related bills: H.R. 2942 , H.R. 782 , S. 796 ) aims to toughen the Treasury Department’s investigations of questionable foreign currency practices. It would require officials to examine “fundamentally misaligned currencies.”

But I never thought about China with regard to compact fluorescent bulbs until today's piece in the Wall Street Journal, "GE to Pare Manufacture of Traditional Lightbulbs: Demand Grows for Energy-Efficient Lighting" by Kathryn Kranhold. (The updated title is : "GE Will Speed Contraction Of Incandescent-Bulb Business.")

Almost everybody will tell you that compact fluorescents are a good idea from the EPA to your local power company to environmental lifestyle magazines. The small amount of mercury is less than that added to the environment by coal burning plants. The Energy Bill, still awaiting its conference committee reconcilation even included a plan to transition to these energy savers from the old-style incadescent bulbs. Who tells you, however, how the bulk of these bulbs, even those produced under American labels, such as General Electric, are made in China?

GE promotes the bulbs on its website, but doesn't talk about the repercussion for American employment. And unfortunately, Kranhold's article is little more than a rewritten media release from the company. What I learned from news stories from affected areas in Ohio was more instructive.

John Booth of Crain's Cleveland Business asked today about the feasibility of adapting the existing plants to fit with GE’s new technology and production needs and was told by Michael Petras, GE's vice president of electrical distribution and lighting that the cost would not have justified the result.

It would be over a $40 million investment to do one factory. And then, you’re not competitive [in the market].

Petras told Booth that GE’s corporate leaders gave the lighting business $500 million to cover the entire restructuring. Part of that amount will cover severance packages and lease payoffs. GE would not specify how many of the jobs in Northeast Ohio will go to other GE plants in the United States.

Don Shilling, the Youngstown (OH) Vindicator's Business Editor mentioned September 21 that "Union leaders had kicked off a campaign earlier this year that asked manufacturers to make CFLs in the U.S. so domestic plants aren't phased out if incandescent bulbs fade away."

That campaign is by the Communication Workers of America, which has launched a petition:

I'm green and I support U.S. jobs. GE should invest in U.S. plants so we can manufacture CFL bulbs and other technologically advanced and environmentally friendly products in the United States. I want to support the environment and good U.S. jobs. I want to buy a U.S.-made CFL light bulb. GE, do the right thing and invest in America.

Lights of America produces bulbs here and has been a leader in the CFL field, while also making a cheap LED bulb. At least one hardware chain in NE carries LOA's CFLs, as does Amazon.com and others.

Political scientist John Rynn (article archive, email), commenting on Grist August 31, made an interesting point that it's:

important to rebuild the manufacturing base of the U.S., in a sustainable manner... a wealthy country must manufacture the bulk of its own goods in order to stay wealthy. But even for sustainability purposes, as I argued in "Wind power needs manufacturing", the U.S. will need to recreate its physical and energy infrastructure with its own manufacturing prowess as well.

The difficulty of buying Chinese (or German, or French, or Japanese) is that eventually, the U.S. dollar will collapse from the huge trade deficits so engendered, and then Americans will be stuck in a "developing" country, that is, a nonindustrial one. And then we won't have the wherewithal to rebuild the society sustainably.

Unfortunately, it's gotten so bad that governments at all levels are going to have to encourage manufacturing...buying Chinese is a symptom of a larger problem.

Now here's what I would like to know: How come American industry, citing climate change, asks for boatloads of money to develop questionable technology such as coal liquification or nuclear power plants, but none to retool factories to manufacture cutting edge products in this country?

[ACTUALLY, AMERICAN INDUSTRY SHOULD BE ASKING FOR BOATLOADS OF MONEY TO DEVELOP NOT ONLY RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, BUT ALSO, COAL LIQUIFICATION, COAL GASIFICATION & NUCLEAR ENERGY. AMERICA'S ENERGY NEEDS & ENERGY SECURITY CANNOT BE SATISFIED BY ONLY RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.china.org.cn/business/news/2007-08/30/content_1222590.htm

EU Extends Antidumping Duties on Chinese Light Bulbs

China.org.cn

8/30/07

Chinese energy-saving light bulbs may face antidumping measures from the European Union (EU) for one more year as the European Commission made a compromised proposal on Wednesday.

The EU's executive body agreed to the one-year extension of the six-year-old duties when its commissioners held their first meeting after the summer break. As a compromise, the antidumping measures will end automatically after the extension.

"Following discussions within the commission and with member states the commission will recommend that it is in the community's interest to discontinue these measures in the next year," the commission said in a press release.

The proposal, which had to be approved by EU member states, was put forward in accordance with the overall interests of the EU, commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger told reporters at a daily news briefing.

"There are grounds to leave the possibility of continuing these antidumping measures for another year, mainly to allow for a soft transition in a changing market reality" for the European industry, he said.

Stephen Adams, the press officer for EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, confirmed with Xinhua that the one-year extension was meant to provide a transition period, after which the antidumping duties will be dropped automatically without the need for further review.

The one-year extension is started once the approval of member states is made, probably within one month, said Adams.

The EU has imposed an antidumping tariff of up to 66 percent on energy-saving light bulbs from China since 2001, which was due to expire in July 2006.

However, the EU later conducted an expiration review amid requests by industry to determine whether to prolong the tariffs for another five years.

During the review period, which lasts 15 months after the expiration and is set to end this October, the antidumping measures remain in force.

Whether to extend the antidumping duties against Chinese energy-saving bulbs has led to heated debate within the EU.

"This case has once again shown the complexities of managing antidumping rules in a global economy and against the broad range of EU interests," Mandelson said in a statement.

Last month, a majority of trade experts in the EU's executive body decided to support an end to the antidumping measures, a position also shared by the EU's top trade official.

But the extension proposal was said to be a compromise mainly between Mandelson and Enterprise Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, who pressed for a two-year transition period and has expressed concern about job losses at German producer Osram, part of the German-based Siemens group.

Osram has pushed to keep the duties in place, while most European producers, led by Dutch electronics group Philips, want them to be lifted.

Both companies have part of their production based in China for cost saving, but Philips has a much larger presence and imports more than other European companies, to such an extent that it can hardly be classified as a European producer.

"Continuing duties would be a backward, protectionist move to safeguard the short-term interests of one single company," Philips said in a statement prior to the commission's decision.

The Foreign Trade Association (FTA), which represents EU importers, said the move was bad news both for the industry and for consumers.

"It is not good for the European industry as some major producers do not want the duties to be extended. And also, it is not good for consumers since the prices are already high because of the duties," FTA spokesman Stuart Newman told Xinhua.

The antidumping measures were also criticized by environmentalists as unjustified in the EU's fight against global warming.

Ahead of Wednesday's meeting, the Switzerland-based World Wildlife Fund (WWF) urged the EU to end the duties, arguing that Europe has to rely on imports to meet its demand for low-energy light bulbs, which is essential to realize the bloc's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 from the level of 1990.

"Ending the antidumping investigation and allowing imports of Chinese integrated compact fluorescent lamps could contribute to savings of 23 million tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to 0.5 percent of EU greenhouse gas emissions," Tony Long, director of the WWF's European Policy Office, said in a letter to EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

It was estimated that EU domestic production can only meet 25 percent of its demand for energy-saving light bulbs, which could reach up to 400 million units by the end of this year.

(Xinhua News Agency August 30, 2007)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://gpj2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/workaffair/200708/20070805043847.html

EU proposes extending anti-dumping measures against Chinese bulbs

From:Xinhua Article type:Reproduced

2007-08-30 05:29

BRUSSELS -- Chinese energy-saving light bulbs may face anti-dumping measures from the European Union (EU) for one more year as the European Commission made a compromised proposal on Wednesday.

The EU's executive body agreed to the one-year extension of the six-year-old duties when its commissioners held their first meeting after the summer break. As a compromise, the anti-dumping measures will end automatically after the extension.

"Following discussions within the commission and with member states the commission will recommend that it is in the community's interest to discontinue these measures in the next year," the commission said in a press release.

The proposal, which had to be approved by EU member states, was put forward in accordance with the overall interests of the EU, commission spokesman Johannes Laitenberger told reporters at a daily news briefing.

"There are grounds to leave the possibility of continuing these anti-dumping measures for another year, mainly to allow for a soft transition in a changing market reality" for the European industry, he said.

Stephen Adams, the press officer for EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, confirmed with Xinhua that the one-year extension was meant to provide a transition period, after which the anti-dumping duties will be dropped automatically without the need for further review.

The one-year extension is started once the approval of member states is made, probably within one month, said Adams.

The EU has imposed an anti-dumping tariff of up to 66 percent on energy-saving light bulbs from China since 2001, which was due to expire in July 2006.

However, the EU later conducted an expiration review amid requests by industry to determine whether to prolong the tariffs for another five years.

During the review period, which lasts 15 months after the expiration and is set to end this October, the anti-dumping measures remain in force.

Whether to extend the anti-dumping duties against Chinese energy-saving bulbs has led to heated debate within the EU.

"This case has once again shown the complexities of managing anti-dumping rules in a global economy and against the broad range of EU interests," Mandelson said in a statement.

Last month, a majority of trade experts in the EU's executive body decided to support an end to the anti-dumping measures, a position also shared by the EU's top trade official.

But the extension proposal was said to be a compromise mainly between Mandelson and Enterprise Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, who pressed for a two-year transition period and has expressed concern about job losses at German producer Osram, part of the German-based Siemens group.

Osram has pushed to keep the duties in place, while most European producers, led by Dutch electronics group Philips, want them to be lifted.

Both companies have part of their production based in China for cost saving, but Philips has a much larger presence and imports more than other European companies, to such an extent that it can hardly be classified as a European producer.

"Continuing duties would be a backward, protectionist move to safeguard the short-term interests of one single company," Philips said in a statement prior to the commission's decision.

The Foreign Trade Association (FTA), which represents EU importers, said the move was bad news both for the industry and for consumers.

"It is not good for the European industry as some major producers do not want the duties to be extended. And also, it is not good for consumers since the prices are already high because of the duties," FTA spokesman Stuart Newman told Xinhua.

The anti-dumping measures were also criticized by environmentalists as unjustified in the EU's fight against global warming.

Ahead of Wednesday's meeting, the Switzerland-based World Wildlife Fund (WWF) urged the EU to end the duties, arguing that Europe has to rely on imports to meet its demand for low-energy light bulbs, which is essential to realize the bloc's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 from the level of 1990.

"Ending the anti-dumping investigation and allowing imports of Chinese integrated compact fluorescent lamps could contribute to savings of 23 million tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to 0.5 percent of EU greenhouse gas emissions," Tony Long, director of the WWF's European Policy Office, said in a letter to EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

It was estimated that EU domestic production can only meet 25 percent of its demand for energy-saving light bulbs, which could reach up to 400 million units by the end of this year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://info.hktdc.com/alert/eu0715a.htm

New anti-dumping investigations set to be triggered in coming months

Business Alert – EU

Hong Kong Trade and Development Center (HKTDC)

Issue 15, 2007 (27 July)

Hong Kong traders will recall that, famously, ten industry associations recently wrote to the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, accusing the European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, of taking a softer stance on anti-dumping cases without consulting the Member States. The European Commission's trade defence teams have experienced a shortage of new investigations over the last six months, a situation which these associations claim demonstrates an unofficial change in policy by the Trade Commissioner. This dry spell follows a particularly active period in 2006, which saw the launch of 36 trade defence measures by the European Commission thereby protecting EU industry from imports originating in countries such as, in particular, the Chinese Mainland.

Those calling for more action by the EU are particularly concerned that even where cases are initiated, this does not necessarily signify a rise in the imposition of trade defence measures, due to the fact that cases can also be terminated before any measures are adopted. This approach -- towards a more limited use of trade defence measures -- can be seen in the Commission's latest proposal to terminate the current investigation concerning imports of energy saving light bulbs from mainland China.

Duties of up to 66.1% have been in force on "integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps" (CFL-i) since February 2001. However, following an expiry review examining whether the duties should remain in force, the Commission will shortly submit a proposal to Member States' representatives, that it would not be in the "Community interest" for duties to be maintained for a further five years. The requirement of examining the Community interest is essential under EU law before trade defence measures can be imposed.

The removal of anti-dumping tariffs is likely to reduce the price of energy-saving light bulbs in the EU, something which is expected to have significant and positive environmental effects. European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, has stated that he aims to introduce a zero-tariff regime for key environmentally friendly goods, consistent with the March 2007 call from EU leaders, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the forefront, exhorting the Commission to phase out the use of old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs over the next few years.

Now, ironically, it is expected that Germany will be one of the strongest opponents of the Commission's latest plans, supporting national light bulb manufacturer Osram which lobbied extensively for the duties to remain in force. The duties are serving to provide further protection for manufacturers of inefficient light bulbs, and the three other major manufacturers of energy saving light bulbs, Philips, GE and Sylvania, all oppose continuation of the measures.

On the other hand, it appears that the current drought in cases is likely to come to an end over the coming months, with indications from the European Commission that several new investigations could be initiated during late 2007.

The Commission is expected to shortly propose the prospect of imposing duties on imports of ferro silicon, used in the production of carbon steel, from the Chinese mainland, Russia, Kazakhstan and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Hong Kong traders should note that according to the draft plans, imports of ferro silicon from the Chinese mainland would be subject to duties of between 9 and 36%. Provisional measures are also planned for imports from South Africa of electrolysed manganese dioxide, used in the production of batteries.

As for future new investigations, while the list of the exact products to be covered and any other details are as yet far from clear, it is likely to include many products shipped from the Chinese mainland. As reported in Business Alert-EU (Issue 01/07), there have been rumours for some time that investigations would cover products such as furniture, ceramics, candles and tableware.

The latest developments indicate that new investigations are likely to be initiated in sectors such as chemicals, minerals and metals. Defensive action is also expected to be taken against the textile industry, which could result in a controversial sequel to the 2005 dispute which resulted in around 80 million garments of Chinese origin being blocked at European ports.

In addition, the Commission appears to be taking a strong stance towards the alleged circumvention of anti-dumping duties on imports of shoes originating in the Chinese mainland and Vietnam. As reported in Business Alert-EU (Issues 6/07 and 10/07), the European Commission has for some time been investigating the substantial decline in imports of footwear from the Chinese mainland since the imposition of definitive measures in October 2006. In March 2007 Commission officials expressed concern about "widespread circumvention" of the measures.

The European Commission has now signalled plans to launch an investigation into claims that companies affected by the measures are avoiding payment of the duties by illegally shipping goods via Macao, whose exports to the EU for April to November 2006 were elevated at more than 1700% when compared to the same period in 2005.

It therefore remains to be seen how exactly the trends concerning the imposition of EU trade defence measures and initiations of new investigations will evolve during the rest of 2007. Hong Kong traders will be aware that despite the recent respite, an onslaught against merchandise originating in the Chinese mainland is unlikely to cease anytime soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.voyantes.net/blog/?p=203

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs)

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 13th, 2007

I have just finished uploading my pictures from last weeks trip to lebanon to my flickr account. among them are five or so that show massive energy saving light-bulbs (or CFLs as they are officially known) used for outdoor lighting of shops and a gas station.

This is a trend that i had already noticed last december in china (not sure if in india): Energy efficient CFLs seem to be all over the place in areas like the Pearl River Delta with it’s rapidly growing energy consumption or Lebanon, whose power generating capacities have been severely reduced in the 2006 war (if you look closely at my pictures from lebanon you will see that all but one light bulb are of the CFL type).

This is in stark contrast with the situation in Europe where these types of light-bulbs still seem to occupy a niche position. Now most likely this is due to the fact that we do not have the same energy constraints (yet) and can thus afford to happily wast our electricity, but a little bit of googling reveals that the fact that you do not see many CFLs around here (i do not have a single one in my house) is probably due to an altogether different reason:

Since 1998, China has become the world’s largest producer and exporter of the energy-saving lamps, changing the structure of a global market that was once monopolized by European and American companies such as Philips, GE, and Siemens-Osram. Chinese manufacturers supplied close to 1 billion CFLs worldwide in 2004. […] In the face of intense international competition, the low price of the Chinese-made bulbs has been the leading factor behind this growth.

[…] The European Commission imposed the five-year CFL duty in 2001 after the European Lighting Companies Federation, a trade group for European producers, claimed that China was flooding the market with cheap bulbs. The anti-dumping tariff was a huge blow to Chinese CFL manufacturers, who were dependent on exports for a large share of their market. Half the country’s CFL enterprises went bankrupt within the year, reducing the number of domestic producers from 4,000 to 2,000 in 2001, then to some 1,400 in 2002. To stay afloat, Chinese manufacturers shifted their attention to Asia and the Americas, regions that have imported more than 70 percent of China’s energy-saving bulbs in recent years. [source: worldwatch.org: China Pushes for Even Greater Share of World CFL Market]

So the real reason for not seeing lots of CFLs in Europe lies in the fact that the EU Commission decided to apply import duties on cheap CFLs from the PRC so that companies like Phillips, GE and Siemens can continue to make a little profit while we are happily wasting electricity. Makes me wonder about the European Commission’s sense of urgency even more than i did last week…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4104

China Pushes for Even Greater Share of World CFL Market

by Zijun Li on June 15, 2006

Next month marks the expiration date for the European Union’s stringent anti-dumping duty on Chinese compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), imposed in July 2001. As long as European lighting-industry leaders do not push the EU to extend the 66-percent tariff during an upcoming review, this would be an opportune time for China’s CFL industry to further strengthen its position in the world market, according to China Energy Daily.

Since 1998, China has become the world’s largest producer and exporter of the energy-saving lamps, changing the structure of a global market that was once monopolized by European and American companies such as Philips, GE, and Siemens-Osram. Chinese manufacturers supplied close to 1 billion CFLs worldwide in 2004, or about 75 percent of the global total, according to Global Source’s report Light Bulbs & Tubes. In the face of intense international competition, the low price of the Chinese-made bulbs has been the leading factor behind this growth.

China’s surging CFL industry has put unprecedented pressure on European manufacturers in recent years. The European Commission imposed the five-year CFL duty in 2001 after the European Lighting Companies Federation, a trade group for European producers, claimed that China was flooding the market with cheap bulbs. The anti-dumping tariff was a huge blow to Chinese CFL manufacturers, who were dependent on exports for a large share of their market. Half the country’s CFL enterprises went bankrupt within the year, reducing the number of domestic producers from 4,000 to 2,000 in 2001, then to some 1,400 in 2002. To stay afloat, Chinese manufacturers shifted their attention to Asia and the Americas, regions that have imported more than 70 percent of China’s energy-saving bulbs in recent years.

Despite the high tariff, however, a substantial number of Chinese CFLs suppliers remain attracted to the European market because of the relatively high price margins compared with Southeast Asia. And as new EU environmental laws, such as the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive, require manufacturers to provide high-quality products that meet strict environmental requirements, the added value of the energy-saving lamps could generate margins as high as 20 percent in Europe (compared with only 6–8 percent in other regions). Recognizing the opportunities, Chinese CFL suppliers are seeking active participation in the upcoming tariff review process in the hope of overturning the anti-dumping restrictions.

Chinese CFL manufacturers are also beginning to explore China’s domestic market, as energy savings tops the national agenda. With more than 1,000 producers nationwide, the indigenous industry has already developed top-notch brands including TCP, TCL, and Oupu. Mass participation in the market has ensured the market’s saturation. Meanwhile, the emergence of high-quality national brands promises robust competition.

Experts believe the peak in Chinese CFL consumption will come in the next few years. A key impetus is the government’s energy-saving scheme, outlined in the 11th five-year national economic plan, which will likely drive policies encouraging CFL consumption. The nation’s robust real-estate market is also stimulating demand. The Beijing City Planning committee estimates that city residents will consume 200 million RMB (US$25 million) annually in home illumination over the next few years. Already, more than 50 million CFLs had been consumed nationwide as of late 2005, and rapidly developing rural areas will continue to provide new markets. Moreover, as the energy-saving bulbs become increasingly affordable for the average Chinese consumer, this is expected to reduce the price pressure on CFL suppliers and enhance their position in the overall lighting market.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://secreg.globalsources.com/sreg/SITE/LIGHTBULB/CSRTUBOVERVIEW.jsp?productcode=CSRTUB&dmsource=HP102BEA

China Sourcing Report

Light Bulbs & Tubes

China is one of the world's leading producers of light bulbs and tubes, exporting 8.6 billion units in 2004, up 36% from the year before.

Low price is the main factor driving this growth. In the face of intense competition, manufacturers are being forced to minimize increases despite soaring raw-material costs.

The result? Unparalleled sourcing opportunities at extremely low prices. But where do you start...and which suppliers are best positioned to meet your demands?

With in-depth supplier profiles, industry analysis, detailed specifications for top-selling export products and much more, this report gives you the answers.

Suppliers: 58 Products: 114 Pages: 102 Published: May 05

Industry overview:

Industry snapshot

No. of manufactures 2,100
No. of exporters 1,200
Exports US$1.2bn
Capacity utilization 80%
Export ratio 50%

China's exports of light bulbs and tubes are on an upswing, with 2004 shipments soaring 36 percent over 2003 figures to reach US$1.2 billion. Overseas trade is showing signs of strong growth this year as initial figures have already risen 18 percent.

China's exports consist mostly of fluorescent lamps, incandescent and halogen bulbs. Exports, when studied in terms of volume, consist mainly of incandescent bulbs, which are the most mature products in the industry. In fact, close to 80 percent of the 8.6 billion light bulbs and tubes exported in 2004 were incandescent bulbs. Only 13 percent were fluorescent lamps and the rest were halogen bulbs.

However, when it comes to export value, fluorescent lamps are the biggest revenue earner, mainly because export prices of fluorescent lamps are much higher than incandescent bulbs. In 2004, for instance, China-made fluorescent lamps averaged US$0.68 apiece whereas incandescent bulbs were priced at only US$0.03 each. In the same year, the US$778 million worth of fluorescent lamps that China exported made up 65 percent of total shipments for the year. Incandescent bulb exports pale in comparison, accounting for only 19 percent of export value.

Fluorescent lamps have registered the highest growth rates among the various bulb types from China, growing an average 40 percent in the past several years. In 2004, suppliers exported 42 percent more fluorescent lamps than in 2003. Both incandescent and halogen bulbs, however, still registered 27 percent growth in exports last year. Leading exports in this product line are compact fluorescent lamps, aptly named because their smaller-than-usual constructions generate more light than conventional fluorescent bulbs.

CFLs are a booming business on their own with the supplier base now consisting of more than 1,000 makers churning out close to 1 billion CFLs annually, about 75 percent of total global output. Some makers of standard fluorescent lamps have already branched out into CFLs as the technology and processes used to make both types are the same.

Halogen bulbs are the third most commonly exported light bulb type in China, accounting for 16 percent of export value in 2004.

New-generation light sources such as LEDs are on the drawing board of some large suppliers, but development is still at the initial stage as makers have yet to adopt advanced technology needed to manufacture these products.

New directive hampers exports to EU

China exports about 70 percent of its energy-saving bulb output — composed mainly of CFLs and standard fluorescent lamps — mainly to Asia, North and South America. Only 20 to 30 percent is sent to the European Union after the region implemented anti-dumping restrictions.

Suppliers will continue to focus mostly on markets outside the EU in the next 12 months, especially after the Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive takes effect in the region this August. The WEEE directive requires makers to provide deposits for expenses incurred in the collection, treatment, recycling and environment-friendly disposal of waste electric and electronic products.

How QUIXOTIC - US 'Green Collar Jobs' Now Include Servicing 'Outsourced' Manufactured Windmill IMports!!

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:15:00 +0000

[WHILE THIS BLOG ENTRY WAS A LIKELY CANDIDATE FOR INCLUSION WITHIN THE ITSSD JOURNAL ON POLITICAL SURREALISM, CONSIDERING HOW 'GREEN COLLAR JOBS' WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFINED AS THOSE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO 'OUTSOURCING', WE THOUGHT IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO EMPHASIZE THE POINTS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF EVOLVING U.S. ENERGY POLICY WHICH SEEMS TO IGNORE & DISTORT REALITY.]

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/ports-welcome-wind-shipments/#more-605

Ports Welcome Wind Shipments

By Kate Galbraith

New York Times

November 28, 2008

The Port of Corpus Christi in Texas, as with many ports, is benefiting from imports of wind power parts.

Ports, like most businesses, have suffered badly in the recent downturn.

At the Port of Long Beach, shipping volume is off 10 percent from last year – and unwanted cars are stacking up on the docks, as my colleague Matt Richtel reported last week.

For some ports, there is a bright spot: wind turbines. The wind business, although slowed by the credit crisis and economic gloom, is continuing to expand. That guarantees a steady stream of imports, since many wind-turbine parts are still manufactured abroad, despite the recent proliferation of factories here.

The Port of Duluth has had nearly a ninefold increase in wind-related freight shipments (by weight) since 2005, according to a story from The Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The Sacramento Bee notes that the Port of Sacramento, too, experienced a wind boom this summer. The port manager says that some visitors mistake the turbines for missiles.

Which are the luckiest ports? According to a wind industry newsletter published in March, ports at Longview and Vancouver in Washington, as well as in Stockton, Calif., are among the “busiest with importing wind industry products” on the West Coast.

On the Gulf, Corpus Christi and Beaumont, Tex., are seeing a good deal of activity, as are ports along the Great Lakes.

From the newsletter:

Gary Nicholson, president of Lake Superior Warehousing Co., attributes the significant employment growth at the Port of Duluth-Superior to the substantial increase in the port’s handling of wind industry equipment. “We have experienced an increase in wind turbine component shipments that is between two and three times as much as what we’ve handled before … resulting in at least a doubling of wages at the port directly,” says Nicholson, speaking of the past year.

Nicholson also notes that this increase has indirectly boosted the local economy, with transportation services, highway patrol escorts, and local hotels and restaurants all having experienced upticks in business.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.startribune.com/local/34968914.html

Wind power is pushing Duluth port to a new age
The explosive growth of wind turbine imports is keeping MnDOT and the port busy.

By LARRY OAKES

Star Tribune

November 23, 2008

DULUTH -- In 2005, a ship called the Bavaria arrived in Duluth-Superior from Europe with a visually stunning cargo the gritty taconite and coal port had never seen: gargantuan yet somehow slender blades, hubs and shafts meant for towering wind turbines.

Since then, America's increasing embrace of wind power has brought the port a windfall, with shipments surging to make the head of the Great Lakes a major funnel for turbines destined for the Upper Midwest and parts of Canada. Jason Paulson, operations manager for Lake Superior Warehousing Co., which transfers turbines from ships to specially designed semitrailer truck caravans, said the port is on track to handle a record 2,000 windmill components this year for several manufacturers, most bound for wind farms in Montana, Oklahoma, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota. Shipments of wind turbines through the port shot from 34,080 freight tons in 2005 to 307,000 freight tons last year.

The Duluth Seaway Port Authority reported this year that transportation of wind turbines was the single largest factor in making fiscal year 2007 its most profitable.

"The growth is explosive," Paulson said. "There were times this season when we were moving 12 windmills a day. It's become the major portion of our heavy-lift business."

Most components are imports from large manufacturers such as Siemens AG, a German conglomerate that this year shipped 76 turbines from its factory in Denmark through Duluth to a wind farm under construction in Adair, Iowa, west of Des Moines. The delivery required six ships and more than 500 semitrailer trucks.

But the port also is seeing growth in exports of windmill components from companies such as LM Glasfiber, a Danish firm that shipped a load of turbine blades this year from its Grand Forks, N.D., factory to a wind farm in Brazil.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sacbee.com/shallit/story/1143675.html

Port of Sacramento energized by cargo for wind far

By Bob Shallit

Aug. 09, 2008

The Sacramento Bee

Port of Sacramento Manager Mike Luken has been hearing people talk all summer about the unusual shipments arriving at his docks.

Typical comments: "'What the heck do you have over there?'" he reports. Or, "It looks like you're shipping missiles through the port."

Not missiles. Wind turbine parts.

In a boon for the port's summer business, Escondido-based enXco Inc. is delivering 11 shiploads of massive components destined for the company's new Shiloh II wind farm near Rio Vista.

About half of the parts – made in Germany and South Korea – are sitting on the ground at the port's West Sacramento facility. The rest are due in coming weeks.

Once all have arrived, they'll be transported to the Shiloh site, where 75 turbines are expected to be in operation by year's end, eventually producing 150 megawatts of electricity for PG&E, says enXco spokeswoman Sandra Briner.

These are big turbines, 271 feet high. Each has four sections and three blades that are 148 feet long. A complete unit weighs about 277 tons.

Multiply that by 75 and you have better than 20,700 tons of energy-producing parts coming through the port. It's a huge piece of business – worth about $275,000, Luken says – and likely to grow, given federal tax credits offered to wind farmers.

[JUST WHAT AMERICA NEEDS - MORE OUTSOURCING OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY 'GREEN' MANUFACTURING JOBS THAT HARMS U.S. COMPETITIVENESS IN THIS BURGEONING SECTOR!!]

Is it enough to help the ever-struggling port return to profitability?

That answer may be blowin' in the wind.

Let them eat cake: It's a wonder that new hires at Freeport Bakery don't gain 10 pounds their first month on the job.

As part of their training, they get homework: Employees, many of them high schoolers, are sent home with several slices of cake each evening so they can familiarize themselves with the company's products.

After they've worked their way through cakes, new hires move on to cookies and pastries.

"The families love it," says Marlene Goetzeler, co-owner with husband Walter of the popular bakery at 2966 Freeport Blvd. "They ask, 'Can she be trained again? Can I come in for training?' "

The sales staff is also expected to know every ingredient in all of Freeport's baked goods. Especially nuts and alcohol.

Says Goetzeler: "Do you really want to sell a champagne cake to somebody for their 2-year-old's birthday?"

The company's extensive training regimen, with advanced instruction for more senior employees, is cited as a national leader in the current issue of Modern Baking magazine.

The story has no information on employee weight gains.

Going nowhere: Speaking of Freeport Bakery, its move to the Broadway corridor now looks doubtful.

The company a year ago announced plans to move from its cramped quarters in Land Park to spacious new digs about a mile away, in a mixed-used complex envisioned at 19th and Broadway.

But the new site's development has been so slow that Goetzeler figures moving there is now unlikely.

"They haven't even torn down the (existing) buildings," she says. "By the time (they're) ready for us, I'll be ready to retire."

She's still willing to relocate "if the perfect place and opportunity come up." Otherwise, Goetzeler says, Freeport Bakery will stay put and "do the best (it) can."

Many of the bakery's neighbors will be happy to hear that, she notes. After news broke about the Broadway move, she says, "I got hate mail."

Let the gaming begin: Just in time for this weekend's launch of the Olympics, Thunder Valley Casino in Lincoln is airing new TV spots showing gamblers waving flags, holding bouquets and taking victory "laps," arms raised in triumph.

"Sledgehammer subtle," says Bob Beyn, president of Seraphein Beyn, describing the Olympics-themed spots his Sacramento ad agency created with Trapeze Ltd., a midtown video production firm.

The commercials run through August. Some will be placed on local sports shows. But none that carry Olympics coverage, presumably because they're too pricey, Beyn says.
Casino ads tend to be "cookie-cutter," Beyn says, showing "happy people winning and eating."

Thunder Valley's spots go for the gold, showing jubilant winners but with humorous Olympian touches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.awea.org/windletter/wl_08mar.html

Wind’s Splash at U.S. Ports

Manufacturing jobs are among the highest-profile signs of the industry’s impact on the economy, but activity from wind energy is rippling through other sectors as well.

By Mary Kate Francis

Windletter, Volume 27, Issue 3

March 2008

View from Washington

While the wind industry often touts its job creation in the manufacturing sector, there is another segment of the economy that is reaping the economic benefits of wind power: transportation. Wind energy has a multifaceted impact on the transportation sector, for it requires the use of ships, rail cars, trucks, and ports to move equipment from manufacturing facilities to construction sites.

One of the places where wind’s economic impact is most visible is at ports—almost as visible as at the very project development sites where turbines and towers are rising from the ground, or at manufacturing plants, where well-paid workers are busy building components to keep up with insatiable demand. As the wind industry grows at a rapid pace, the clean renewable energy source is modifying the face and the pace of business at American harbors.

Growth in jobs around the country [WINDPOWER MANUFACTURED ABROAD!!]

Wind’s economic impact can be seen at ports literally around the country. Among those busiest with importing wind industry products are Longview, Wash.; Vancouver, Wash.; and Stockton, Calif., on the West Coast, and Corpus Christi and Beaumont, Texas, on the Gulf Coast. The Great Lakes region also has seen import and export activity of turbine components, particularly at the ports of Milwaukee, Wis., and Duluth-Superior, Minn.

Several port authorities are able to [RE-]define job growth in wind industry terms. Betty Nowak, marketing manager at the Port of Milwaukee, reports a 500% increase in labor hours worked by longshoremen at the dock over the last five years, as wind industry equipment has increasingly passed through the harbor. At the Port of Longview, meanwhile, labor hours worked by union members in unloading wind energy components at the port's docks grew from 1,257 in 2003 to over 21,000 in 2006, according to Marie Wise, communications and public affairs manager at the port. She notes that the growth in labor hours reflects both job creation and an overall upswing in the local economy.

At the Port of Vancouver, Alastair Smith, senior director of marketing and operations, reports an additional hire of 26 longshoremen in 2007, and an overall increase in employees of about 50% over the last five years—both statistics of which are "significantly, but not fully, attributable to the wind industry." Smith notes that that the work of handling wind project cargo requires a substantially larger amount of labor hours than other types of freight; thus, without the wind energy business, his port would not have seen as much job growth.

Gary Nicholson, president of Lake Superior Warehousing Co., attributes the significant employment growth at the Port of Duluth-Superior to the substantial increase in the port’s handling of wind industry equipment. "We have experienced an increase in wind turbine component shipments that is between two and three times as much as what we’ve handled before…resulting in at least a doubling of wages at the port directly," says Nicholson, speaking of the past year. Nicholson also notes that this increase has indirectly boosted the local economy, with transportation services, highway patrol escorts, and local hotels and restaurants all having experienced upticks in business.

Policy support as a catalyst for growth

Several port officials attribute their businesses' growth to the political support they are finding in their states and regions for renewable electricity. At the Port of Beaumont, which handled about 300 complete wind turbine units in 2007, John Roby, director of customer service, says that at least some of those wind industry customers are interested in establishing long-term partnerships for several years into the future.

“A lot of our future success depends on government regulations and tax credits,” Roby notes. In that regard, he acknowledges that his trust in the continued strength of the industry comes from the state of Texas’s commitment to generate 5,580 MW of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

Vancouver’s Smith also envisions steadily increasing business from the wind industry. “We supported eight different projects [in 2007],” says Smith. That’s up from previous years, in which the port supported about one project annually since 2002. Citing Washington’s and Oregon’s renewable electricity standards, Smith says that the port expects to have increasing business relations with the wind industry, and ultimately “will benefit” from these policies.

[HOW ARE SHORT-TERM U.S. STATE & CITY GOVERNMENT POLICIES NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE INCREASING DEFICIT IN U.S.-MANUFACTURED GREEN TECHNOLOGIES & JOB SKILLS!! AN INCREASE IN UNION PORT & TRANSPORTATION JOBS ARE LOW-SKILLED JOBS THAT WILL NOT MAKE UP FOR THIS DEFICIT, SORRY TO SAY!!]

Certainly, a steady policy environment for wind is encouraging several ports to make investments in their facilities. The Port of Vancouver is considering an investment of approximately $4.5 million in a second mobile harbor crane in 2008, reports Smith. Additionally, the port is making a $75-$80 million investment to increase its rail capacity from 45,000 to 160,000 rail cars. The project will create a “capacity and velocity increase” in the port’s ability to move wind industry components from one stage of the transportation process to another, ultimately enabling “much more efficient operation,” Smith says.

At the Port of Longview, meanwhile, the 2008 budget includes $4.5 million for purchase of a mobile harbor crane, reports Wise. She says this investment will enable the port to “maintain a sustainable market position in the wind energy industry.” Longview, like many other ports, is also clearing acreage adjacent to its terminal for temporary storage of wind turbine components.

A piece of the action [???]

The ability of ports to serve the wind industry is "a specialty," says Lake Superior Warehousing Co.’s Nicholson. "It seems simple, but it’s not. It requires ground space and big equipment."

Meeting the transportation needs of the wind industry often requires investments by ports, but it also brings a large financial return. So, as ports like Beaumont and Milwaukee enjoy the economic benefits of being a link on the wind energy industry supply chain, other harbors are seeking to get in on the action. The Port of Lake Charles, La., for one, is looking to broaden the type of cargo it handles from mainly grains and forest products to wind industry components. Derek Schierloh, manager of marketing and trade development, reports that Lake Charles is in the process of spending approximately $125 million on developing the port and its three terminals for this purpose. The port is also in the process of building a loop track to enable trains to be moved around the terminal without disconnecting the cars; in addition, the port is considering nearly doubling its 16 acres of open paved storage space to 30 acres in order to better accommodate the wind industry.

Invariably, such ports want a piece of what Nicholson and others are already experiencing: the rewards of joining wind power’s supply chain. "In a general way, [the wind industry] has had a very positive economic impact on our port…," Nicholson says. "We just keep trying every day to do the right thing, execute our work every day so [the business] keeps coming back…We’re doing everything we can to serve the industry. We’re very proud to be a part of it."

Mary Kate Francis is advocacy communications specialist at AWEA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[THE GREEN DON QUIXOTE!]

[EUROPEAN & CHINESE WIND POWER INDUSTRIES ARE RAPIDLY EXPANDING AT THE EXPENSE OF U.S. COMPETITIVENESS. See: How Can Obama Deliver Millions of U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' Renewable Energy (Wind) Manufacturing Jobs If They Are Mostly Owned/Outsourced By/To Europe?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-us.html ; How Can Obama Deliver Millions of 'GREEN COLLAR' Jobs If Most Windmill Manufacturing Jobs Will be Outsourced to China and India?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-green.html ].

[AS WITH DON QUIXOTE, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO RELATIVISM IF ONE HAS ECO-IMAGINATION!!! VICE IS INSTANTANEOUSLY TRANSFORMED INTO VIRTUE!! FICTION BECOMES REALITY! REALITY BECOMES FICTION SUBJECT TO 'CHANGE'! THE ONCE INSANE, BECOMES NOT ONLY SANE, BUT EMINENTLY REASONABLE!!]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://tiltingatwindmillsblog.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/nabokovs-lectures-on-don-quixote-introduction

Nabokov’s Lectures on Don Quixote: Introduction

Tilting at Windmills Blog

Saturday, May 5 2007

I absolutely loved Vladimir Nabokov’s “Introduction,” the first in his six part series on Don Quixote. It begins thusly:

We shall do our best to avoid the fatal error of looking for so-called “real life” in novels. Let us not try and reconcile the fiction of facts with the facts of fiction. Don Quixote is a fairy tale, so is Bleak House, so is Dead Souls. Madame Bovary and Anna Karenin are supreme fairy tales. But without these fairy tales the world would not be real. A masterpiece of fiction is an original world and as such is not likely to fit the world of the reader.

Well, that sure is lovely! Nabokov then advances his point, explaining that “real life,” if it is anything at all, “is but a piece of fiction, a tissue of statistics.” Therefore, since the notion of “real life” is in itself built on boring generalities, we should be glad that fiction does not often depict life as we understand it.

… the more vivid a new details in a work of fiction, then the more it departs from so-called “real life,” since “real life” is the generalized epithet, the average emotion, the advertised multitude, the commonsensical world.

Having this dispatched with a serious bugaboo, Nabokov proceeds to consider, in brief, some introductory concerns. Here are a few of them:

The “Where?” of Don Quixote

Nabokov here explains that the Spain depicted in Cervantes’ book has little resemblance to the country’s actual geography:

If [...] we examine Don Quixote’s excursions topographically, we are confronted with a ghastly muddle. I shall spare you its details and only mention the fact that throughout those adventures there is a mass of monstrous inaccuracies at every step.

Then that’s one thing you don’t have to worry about!

The “When?” of the Book

Sylvia has already posted a wonderful timeline, so I won’t bother reminding you that Cervantes was a contemporary of Shakespeare, or that the Spanish Empire was at its height during his lifetime. I will, however, quote Nabokov at length on the book’s place in the history of narrative:

What we shall witness now is the evolution of the epic form, the shedding of its metrical skin, the hoofing of its feet, a sudden fertile cross between the winged monster of the epic and the specialized prose form of entertaining narration, more or less a domesticated mammal, if I may pursue the metaphor to its lame end. The result is a fertile hybrid, a new species, the European novel.

As you can see, reading the lectures of a great novelist has its perks.

The General Comments of Critics

In the Foreward, Guy Davenport explained that one of Nabokov’s chief goals was to dispel the hyperventilating style of criticism that surrounds this novel. So he begins this section with:

Some critics, a very vague minority long dead, have tried to prove that Don Quixote is but a stale farce. Others have maintained that Don Quixote is the greatest novel ever written. A hundred years ago one enthusiastic French critic, Sainte-Beuve, called it “the Bible of Humanity.” Let us not fall under the spell of these enchanters.

Nabokov has little patience for this sort of talk, nor does he care to argue about whether Cervantes was as good as Shakespeare (he’s not, according the Nabokov), or whether he was a Protestant Reformer or a militant Catholic.

In conclusion, here is a lovely snippet from the lecture’s final paragraph:

We should, therefore, imagine Don Quixote and his squire as two little silhouettes ambling in the distance against an ample flaming sunset, and their two huge black shadows, one of them especially elongated, stretching across the open country of centuries and reaching us here.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E3DF153BF930A25751C0A965948260

DON QUIXOTE RESTORED

By Guy Davenport

New York Times

February 13, 1983

The following article will appear as the foreword to ''Lectures on 'Don Quixote' '' by Vladimir Nabokov, to be published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich later this month.

''I REMEMBER with delight,'' Vladimir Nabokov said in 1966 to Herbert Gold, who had traveled to Montreux to interview him, ''tearing apart 'Don Quixote,' a cruel and crude old book, before 600 students in Memorial Hall, much to the horror and embarrassment of some of my more conservative colleagues.'' Tear it apart he did, for good critical reasons, but he also put it back together. Cervantes' masterpiece was not in Nabokov's syllabus at Cornell, he was apparently not fond of it, and when he began preparing his Harvard lectures on it (Harvard having insisted that he not omit it) his first discovery was that American professors had over the years gentrified the cruel and crude old book into a genteel and whimsical myth about appearance and reality. So first of all he had to find the text for his students under all the prissy humbug a long tradition of misreading had sifted over it. Nabokov's new reading is an event in modern criticism.

Nabokov's intention to polish these lectures given at Harvard in 1951-1952 and at Cornell from 1948 to 1959 was never realized, and those of us who were not among ''the 600 young strangers'' enrolled in Humanities 2 at Harvard, spring semester 1951-1952, must read Nabokov on Cervantes from notes that survived in manila folders, scrupulously and splendidly edited by Fredson Bowers, the most distinguished of American bibliographers.

Harvard's Memorial Hall, where Nabokov read these lectures, is as symbolic a place for them as the most fastidious ironist could wish. It is a gaudy Victorian pile that Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee could assure us is precisely the bamboozled composite of medieval architecture he saw in his dream. It was designed as a pilot example of Collegiate Gothic in 1878 by William Robert Ware and Henry Van Brunt, to memorialize the soldiers slain by quixotic Confederates in the Civil War. In this building precipitated from the imagination of Sir Walter Scott and John Ruskin, in this consummately quixotic architectural rhetoric, what could be more fitting than that a connoisseur of ridiculous postures and keen nuances should jolt us awake in the matter of the ingenuous old gentleman from la Mancha?

Once, when I was teaching ''Don Quixote'' at the University of Kentucky, a student raised his long Baptist arm to say that he had come to the conclusion that the hero of our book is crazy. That, I said, is something that has been discussed for 400 years and now we, snug in this classroom on an autumn afternoon, get to have our shot at it. ''Well,'' he muttered with some querulousness, ''I find it hard to believe that they would write a whole book about a crazy man.'' His theory is correct. The book Nabokov took apart so deftly at Harvard was a book evolved from Cervantes' text, so that when one brings up ''Don Quixote'' in any discussion, the problem of whose Quixote arises. Jules Michelet's? Miguel de Unamuno's? Joseph Wood Krutch's? For Cervantes' character, like Hamlet, Sherlock Holmes and Robinson Crusoe, began to stray from his book almost as soon as he was invented. Not only has there been a steady sentimentalization of the Don and his sidekick, Sancho Panza - sweet, charmingly befuddled Don Quixote! comic Sancho, so picturesquely a levelheaded peasant! - but a displacement as well of the text by its illustrators, especially Gustave Dore, Honore Daumier (and nowadays Picasso and Dali), its celebrators, imitators, dramatizers, and users of the word ''quixotic,'' which means anything you want it to mean. It should mean something like ''hallucinated,'' ''self-hypnotized'' or ''play in collision with reality.'' How it came to mean ''admirably idealistic'' is an explanation Nabokov undertakes in these lectures.

To put Cervantes' Don Quixote back into Cervantes' text Nabokov (encouraged by the need to do so after looking into a batch of American critics and their laughably irresponsible accounts of the book) first wrote out a chapter-by-chapter summary - which Mr. Bowers helpfully includes. The diligence of this summary can only shame those teachers who still have a week's go at ''Don Quixote'' in sophomore survey courses all over the Republic without having read the book since they themselves were sophomores, without ever having read Part II, or (I know of one) not having read the book at all. For ''Don Quixote,'' as Nabokov knew with some pain and annoyance, is not the book people think it is. Far too many interpolated novellas (of the kind we cheerfully forget mar ''The Pickwick Papers'') impede the plotless plot. We all rewrite the book in our heads so that it is a picaresque succession of events: the appropriation of the barber's basin as Mambrino's helmet, the tilt at the windmills (which became the archetypal quintessence of the book), charging the sheep and so on. Many people wholly innocent of the text can supply you with a plausible plot summary.

What Nabokov's eyes kept seeing as he prepared his lectures was the accurately perceived fact that the book elicits cruel laughter. Cervantes' old man who had read himself into insanity and his smelly squire were created to be the butt of mockery. Quite early, readers and critics began to sidestep this Spanish fun and to interpret that story as another kind of satire: one in which an essentially sane, humane soul in a crass and unromantic world can only appear as insane.

The problem is not simple. Spain, which has traditionally rejected outsiders, has no talent (like China or the United States, for example) for accommodating them. In Cervantes' lifetime there was the hysterical expulsion of Jews, Moors and converts of Jewish and Islamic origins. Spain kept the gladiatorial slaughters in an arena (for the amusement of the populace) long after all the rest of the Roman Empire had abandoned them. The national entertainment, the bullfight, sets Spain aside among civilized people even today. The historical moment in which ''Don Quixote'' was written, the reign of Philip II, that paranoid fanatic who styled himself the Most Catholic King, is one we have silvered over with a moonlight of Romance. Nabokov was lecturing in the hotbed of Spanish romanticizing. Lowell and Longfellow had invented a Spain which has stuck in the American imagination (as witness the musical ''Man of la Mancha'') and which, pitifully, American tourists flock to Spain to find.

And yet, in its way, the Spain of Philip II was quixotic. Its nobles owned suits of armor in which no cavalryman would dare try to conduct a battle. Philip, practical, nattering fussbudget of a king, used to stand his empty suit of armor at attention to review his troops. He himself was inside the palace, among his voluptuous Titians, doing the accounts, reading and annotating every letter sent and received in his network of embassies and spies as wide as from the New World to Vienna, as deep as from Rotterdam to Gibraltar. He, if any model is to be found, is Don Quixote, but an anti-Quixote. Like the Don, he lived in a dream whose illusory fabric kept tearing. He burnt heretics, but how do you know a heretic is a heretic? Was he not in the same epistemological hot spot as Don Quixote seeing sheep as sheep but also as Moors? Philip's cruel spies were forever hauling people who said they were good Catholics to the torturer on the suspicion that they were (if you knew how to find out) insincere converts, Humanists, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, atheists, witches or God knows what.

EUROPE was going through a time in which reality began to flipflop. Hamlet teased Polonius with the ambiguous shapes of clouds. Don Quixote's abilities to fool himself are a focus of the age's anxieties. Identity, for the first time in European history, became a matter of opinion or of conviction. [IN THE 21st CENTURY, IT STILL IS!!] Chaucer's laughter at ''pigges bones'' was not skepticism of authentic relics to be venerated. But in ''Don Quixote'' the confusion of a horse trough with a baptismal font seriously opens the question (whether Cervantes intended to or not) as to whether what we call a baptismal font isn't a water trough innocent of all the quixotic magic we assign to it.

Over the years, I think, the meaning of ''Don Quixote'' has skewed into the winds of the Enlightenment and sailed brightly under false colors which we have all too willingly wished upon it. This is what brought Nabokov's gaze into such stringency. He wanted the book to be itself alone, to be a fairy tale, to be an imaginative construct independent of the myth ''real life.'' And yet ''Don Quixote'' is precisely a book that plays games with ''real life.'' In its way it is a kind of treatise about how meaning gets into things and lives. It is a book about enchantment, the inappropriateness of enchantment in a disenchanted world and the silliness of enchantment in general. Despite this, it enchants. It became, with much misreading and cooperation on our part, what it mocked.

NABOKOV, astute observer of the American psyche, knew that all 600 Harvardlings and Cliffies in his audience believed in knights, just as they believed in the Old West with its cowboys errant and in the Gothic architecture of Memorial Hall. He wasted no time disabusing them; in fact, cheerfully told them they would hear nothing of Cervantes, his times or his missing left hand (lost at Lepanto) from him. Instead, he insisted that they know what a windmill was, drew them one on a blackboard and instructed them in the names of its parts. He told them why a country gentleman might mistake windmills for giants - they were an innovation in 17th-century Spain, the last country to hear of anything new in all Europe.

Nabokov is very clear, and very funny, about Dulcinea del Toboso. But he does not scatter his students' attention by digressing on Courtly Love, its strange metamorphic history and its curious survival today. If, as he delivered these carefully wrought revisionist lectures, part of his mind was surely over at the University Museum four minutes' walk away, where he spent eight years of the preceding decade as research fellow in entomology studying the anatomy of butterflies, another part must have been on a project concerning Courtly Love, its madnesses and follies, which would mature three years hence as ''Lolita.'' That diminutive of a Spanish name, Dolores, raises our curiosity. ''Lolita'' is too logically a progression of Nabokovian themes (the other as the self, the generative power of delusion, the interplay of sense and obsession) to have been influenced by a close and tedious reading of the ''Quixote.'' And yet there's the picaresque journey as the ''harmonizing intuition'' of the two works. And there's the sprite Lolita. She began as a seductive child in the first appearance of romantic love in the West, boy or girl, Sappho's darlings or Anakreon's striplings. Plato philosophized these hopeless loves into something called the love of Ideal Beauty. The theme became salacious and overbearing in the leaden hands of the Romans, almost melted away in the early Middle Ages, to emerge again in the 10th century as Romance. By Cervantes' time Courtly Love had saturated literature (it still does), and in his satire of it and of its new context, Chivalry, he found it obvious enough to transmute the stock paragon of virtue and beauty into a country girl with big feet and a prominent wart.

''Don Quixote'' had no effect whatsoever on the health of the Romance; it simply invented a robust and parallel tradition that has moved alongside ever since. A Richardson would now have a Fielding. We would keep the ideal beauty, but in the house next door lives Madame Bovary. Scarlett O'Hara and Molly Bloom, spirited Irish women both, have equal claim on our imagination. Even in the old romances, from early on, the virtuous beauty is balanced by a sorceress, Una by Duessa. After ''Don Quixote'' the false beauty began to be interesting in herself, an Eve claiming her old prerogatives as temptress. By the late 17th and 18th centuries she had set up shop in literature and real life. To get at a French king, Michelet observed, you had to wiggle your way through a wall of women. The mistress became a kind of social institution; literature said she was demanding and dangerous but more interesting and gratifying than a wife: a ritual detail of the Romance ''Don Quixote'' supposedly laid by the heels. In the overripe Decadence the mistress became a spicy Lilith, the primeval feminine in a lacy nightie, reeking of doom, damnation and death. Lulu, Benjamin Franklin Wedekind called her. Molly, said Joyce. Circe, said Pound. Odette, said Proust. And out of this chorus Nabokov plucked his Lulu, Lolita, whose real name, Dolores, was more Swinburnian, blending her with her cousins Alice (Nabokov is the translator of ''Alice in Wonderland'' into Russian), Ruskin's Rose and Poe's Annabel Lee. But her Grandmama was Dulcinea del Toboso. And Humbert Humbert's memoirs, we remember, are offered to us by a professor as the ravings of a madman.

SO these lectures are not without their interest to admirers of Nabokov's novels. Both Cervantes and Nabokov recognize that playing can extend beyond childhood, not as its natural transformation into daydreaming (which psychiatrists find so suspicious and discourage) or creativity of all sorts but as play itself. That's what Don Quixote is doing: playing knight errant. Lolita's side of her affair with Humbert Humbert is play (she is surprised that grown-ups are interested in sex, which to her is just another game), and the psychology of Humbert (meant to elude the theories of Freud) may be that he is simply stuck in the playtime of childhood. In any case, whenever a critic considers the picaresque novel, or literary treatments of illusion and identity, he will find himself thinking of Cervantes and Nabokov together.

These lectures on Cervantes were a triumph for Nabokov in that I think he surprised himself in his final opinion of ''Don Quixote.'' He approached his task conscientiously despite thinking of this old wheeze of a classic as a white elephant and something of a fraud. It was the suspicion of fraud that propelled his interest. Then, I think, he saw that the fraud was in the book's reputation and epidemic among its critics. Here was a state of affairs that Nabokov liked to go at bec et ongle. He begins to suspect that Cervantes is unaware of the book's ''disgusting cruelty.'' He begins to like the Don's dry humor, his engaging pedantry. He accepts the ''interesting phenomenon'' that Cervantes created a character greater than the book from which he has wandered - into art, into philosophy, into political symbolism, into the folklore of the literate.

''DON QUIXOTE'' remains a crude old book full of peculiarly Spanish cruelty, pitiless cruelty that baits an old man who plays like a child into his dotage. It was written in an age when dwarfs and the afflicted were laughed at, when pride and haughtiness were more arrogant than ever before or since, when dissenters from official thought were burned alive in city squares to general applause, when mercy and kindness seem to have been banished. Indeed, the first readers of the book laughed heartily at its cruelty. Yet the world soon found other ways of reading it. It gave birth to the modern novel all over Europe. Fielding, Smollett, Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Daudet, Flaubert shaped this fable out of Spain to their own ends. A character who started out in his creator's hands as a buffoon has turned out in the course of history to be a saint. And even Nabokov, always quick to detect and expose the cruelty at the core of all sentimentality, lets him have his way. ''We do not laugh at him any longer,'' he concludes. ''His blazon is pity, his banner is beauty. He stands for everything that is gentle, forlorn, pure, unselfish and gallant.''

Guy Davenport, who teaches at the University of Kentucky, is the author of a book of essays, “The Geography of the Imagination” and of “Da Vinci’s Bicycle: Ten Stories”.

Ambitious UK Climate Change Law With Global Impact Akin to Pinocchio Wishing Upon a Star

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:17:00 +0000

[THE FOLLOWING BLOG ENTRY ASKS SEVERAL POINTED QUESTIONS:

1) DOES THE UK GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY BELIEVE,IN LIGHT OF THE SERIOUS GLOBAL ECONOMIC MALAISE THAT EUROPE, INCLUDING BRITAIN, IS NOW SUFFERING, THAT ITS AMBITIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR AN 80% REDUCTION IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS DEEMED NECESSARY TO FORESTALL GLOBAL CLIMATE ARMAGEDDON, FACILITATED BY IMPOSITION OF EXPENSIVE ECONOMICALLY RESTRICTIVE ENERGY-USE AND GENERATION & WASTE RECYCLING REGULATIONS AND COSTLY INCOME, EXCISE, USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL TAX INCREASES THAT WILL RAISE THE COSTS OF ALL GOODS AND SERVICES TO UK BUSINESSES & CONSUMERS, IS POLITICALLY DESIRABLE, or REALISTIC OR EVEN ECONOMICALLY and ENVIROMENTALLY ACHIEVABLE???

2) IS THIS AMBITIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE LAW AN EFFORT BY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN AND THE UK PARLIAMENT TO, ONCE AGAIN, MOLLIFY THE POLITICALLY INFLUENTIAL UK GREEN PARTY AND ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS INTO BELIEVING THAT THEIR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION DREAMS CAN BE REALIZED?? or IS IT JUST PLAIN DELUSIONAL OR POSTURING FOR THE UPCOMING UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE TAKING PLACE IN POZNAN, POLAND ??

3) IS THE NEW UK CLIMATE CHANGE LAW A PINOCCHIO-LIKE ATTEMPT BY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN AND THE UK PARLIAMENT TO DECEIVE THE BRITISH PEOPLE (AND ACTUALLY THEMSELVES) INTO BELIEVING THAT THESE ARE REAL 'DELIVERABLES' and A DREAM COME TRUE?

4) ISN'T IT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE AMBITIOUS UK CLIMATE CHANGE LAW IS AKIN TO WISHING UPON A STAR???

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Pinocchio is the second animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics. It was produced by Walt Disney and was originally released to theatres by RKO Radio Pictures on February 7, 1940. [It was b]ased on the story Pinocchio: Tale of a Puppet by Carlo Collodi...The plot of the film involves a wooden puppet being brought to life by a blue fairy, who tells him he can become a real boy if he proves himself "brave, truthful, and unselfish". Thus begin the puppet's adventures to become a real boy, which involve many encounters with a host of unsavory characters.

Pinocchio was not commercially successful when first released...despite the poor timing of the release, the film did do well both critically and at the box office in the United States. Jiminy Cricket's song, "When You Wish Upon a Star," became a major hit and is still identified with the film, and later as a fanfare for The Walt Disney Company itself. Pinocchio also won the Academy Award for Best Song and the Academy Award for Best Scoring of a Musical Picture. In 1994, Pinocchio was added to the United States National Film Registry as being deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." In 2001 Terry Gilliam selected it as one of the ten best animated films of all time[4] and in 2005 Time.com named it one of the 100 best movies of the last 80 years. Many film historians consider this to be the film that most closely approaches technical perfection of all the Disney animated features. [5] Pinocchio earned $84,254,167 at the box office. [6] In June 2008, the American Film Institute revealed its "Ten top Ten"—the best ten films in ten "classic" American film genres—after polling over 1,500 people from the creative community. Pinocchio was acknowledged as the second best film in the animation genre... See: Pinocchio (1940 film), Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinocchio_(1940_film)].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The American Film Institute ranked "When You Wish Upon A Star" seventh in their 100 Greatest Songs in Film History, the highest ranked Disney song. In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, the song has become a Christmas song, often referring to the Star of Bethlehem. The Swedish language version is called Ser du stjärnan i det blå, roughly translated: "do you see the star in the blue(sky)", and the Danish title is "Når du ser et stjerneskud", which roughly translates as "When you see a shooting star". In Denmark, Sweden and Norway the song is played on television every Christmas Eve's day in the traditional Disney one-hour christmas cabaret, and the gathering of the entire family for the watching of this, is considered major Scandinavian tradition. See: When You Wish upon a Star, Wikipedia, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_You_Wish_Upon_a_Star ].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When You Wish Upon A Star (c)

Music by Leigh Harline / Lyrics by Ned Washington

Performed by Jiminy Cricket (Cliff Edwards)

-------------

When you wish upon a star

Makes no difference who you are

Anything your heart desires

Will come to you

------------------------

If your heart is in your dream

No request is too extreme

When you wish upon a star

As dreamers do

------------------------

Fate is kind

She brings to those who love

The sweet fulfillment of

Their secret longing

------------------------

Like a bolt out of the blue

Fate steps in and sees you through

When you wish upon a star

Your dreams come true

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/emissions/3533993/New-targets-to-cut-carbon-emissions-expected-to-cost.html

New targets to cut carbon emissions expected to cost

Hydrogen cars, better insulated homes and solar panels will be recommended as part of costly plans being brought forward by the Government to cut carbon emissions, despite the recession.

By Louise Gray

Environment Correspondent

UK Telegraph

29 Nov 2008

Under plans to tackle climate change targets, businesses will be expected to invest in updating equipment, improving insulation and replacing transport fleets.

And individuals will also be expected to make big lifestyle changes, for example by improving energy efficiency in the home, turning off appliances and paying more for products or services that pollute the environment.

Next week, Lord Turner will set out how the Government is expected to cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050 on 1990 levels.

He will set a series of five year "carbon budgets" with advice on how each sector will have to contribute.

The power sector, which produces 30 per cent of the UK's emissions, will be expected to make the bulk of the cuts. This will mean a massive investment in renewables such as wind farms and "clean" energy, such as nuclear, that could ultimately be passed onto the customer.

It will also cast doubt on plans to build a new generation of coal-fired power stations in the UK including the controversial Kingsnorth power station in Kent.

Transport will take a blow with car companies bringing forward a new generation of electric cars, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen vehicles whilst phasing out the cheaper polluting models.

As chairman of the independent Climate Change Committee, Lord Turner will set legally binding targets for the amount of greenhouse gases the UK can produce by 2012, 2017 and 2022. He said the cost of cutting carbon emissions will be a saving in the long term, as energy efficiency is improved and the catastrophic consequences of climate change will be avoided.

"It's very important to avoid misuse of the temporary downturn for lessening policies," he warned.

Businesses concerned about rising costs and job losses have already asked the Government to concentrate on cheaper measures such as improving energy efficiency rather than spending on renewables.

Matthew Farrow, head of environment at the CBI, said it was crucial to make the right decisions in the economic downturn.

"The economic difficulties make it even more important that we use the most cost effective methods to cut emissions," he warned.

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, admitted there will be a cost over the next 10 to 15 years but it will be recouped in savings on energy efficiency and ultimately lead to a more sustainable economic model.

"In the medium term there will be a need to invest in new technologies, products and services that will be low carbon. Individuals will be expected to pay for that. But that is the normal way of developing growth."

Lord Turner has signalled that the aviation industry will be given leeway, while biofuels are developed, sparking speculation the Government will be able to go ahead with airport expansion.

But this does mean there will have to be steeper cuts elsewhere.

He will also set out the proportion of cuts that can be made though 'emissions trading' abroad, for example by buying carbon "offsets" from rainforest countries.

But Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said the UK should take responsibility for emissions.

"The committee should put pressure on the Government to abandon climate-wrecking plans to expand UK airports and not to build coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage from the outset," he said.

"Investing in green energy and cutting energy waste can create tens of thousands of new jobs, reduce our dependency on the yo-yoing cost of fossil fuels and put Britain at the forefront of a green industrial revolution."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/28/news/international/eu_econ.ap/?postversion=2008112807

European unemployment soars:
Jobless rate in the 15-nation euro zone jumps 7.7% last month.

November 28, 2008

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- Unemployment in the 15 nations that share the euro shot up to 7.7% in October - the highest level in two years - as growth dropped sharply, the EU statistics agency Eurostat said Friday.

Prices also plunged with the annual inflation rate sinking to 2.1% in November from 3.2% in October, Eurostat said. Lower inflation gives the European Central Bank more room to reduce interest rates, which would help stoke growth.

The euro area officially went into a recession in spring and summer this year when growth shrank in the second and third quarters, as a financial crisis curbed global demand.

In real terms, this means job losses - lots of them and more to come.

Eurostat said some 225,000 more people were seeking work in October from the previous month. That means some 12 million people in the euro area were out of work last month. It also said unemployment in September was worse than it had first estimated, revising the rate upward to 7.6% from the 7.5% it reported last month.

Across all the EU's 27 states, some 17 million people were job-hunting in October, 290,000 more than a month earlier. The EU jobless rate was 7.1% in October, up from 7% in September.

The EU's executive Commission forecasts that the labor market will get even worse next year, with the euro-zone rate climbing to 8.4% in 2009 from a decade-low of 7% at the end of 2007. This will see an extra 2 million people out of work.

Unemployment is highest in Spain, at 12.8%. The bursting of a housing bubble has put builders out of work just as the tourism industry has been hurt by the global economic downturn.

The European Commission this week called on EU governments to pay out $258 billion in tax cuts, soft loans to industry and credit guarantees to encourage growth.

Tumbling exports have hurt Europe's manufacturing industry - particularly in Germany, the world's largest exporter - which had helped drive economic growth this year even as household spending froze.

But one of the most important tools to manage the economy is out of the hands of most European governments - the independent European Central Bank decides on borrowing costs for euro nations and until recently was slow to cut interest rates while inflation was high.

The price index is a calmer 2.1% this month, the lowest since September 2007. It is also close to the ECB's guideline of just under 2%. Oil prices have dropped by more than half since July while retailers are slashing prices in the key Christmas shopping season.

The bank's mandate is to tackle inflation, which it has repeatedly stressed was too high this year, but the lower figure released Friday will allow it to move more aggressively to slash rates and kickstart the economy.

In recent days, bank governors have spoken out in favor of lowering its key interest rate - now 3.25% - to tackle the slowing economy. They next meet to decide rates is on Dec. 4 in Brussels.

Marco Valli, an economist at Unicredit, said he expected the ECB to make a "shy cut" next week to bring the interest rate to 2.75% next week. Bank of America's Gilles Moec said he thought the bank might gun for a more dramatic cut to 2.5%.

Lower borrowing costs can tempt businesses and households to borrow more - as long as banks pass on the cuts to customers.

That isn't always the case in the current climate of tight credit. Banks are more fearful about taking on risks in the wake of the financial crisis and are finding it harder and more expensive to borrow money on credit markets that they lend on to customers.

In Britain, the government has pressured banks to pass on hefty interest rate cuts to hard-pressed homeowners and small businesses. Some banks prefer to freeze their rates to claw back profit and shore up their reserves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2ba8ec8-bcbe-11dd-af5a-0000779fd18c.html

Eurozone set for rate cut of at least 50 points

By Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt

Financial Times

November 27 2008

Eurozone official interest rates are almost certain to be slashed again next week by at least half a percentage point after a survey on Thursday showed the region facing its worst downturn since the recession of the early 1990s.

Economic confidence in the 15-country region crashed this month to its lowest point since August 1993, the European Commission reported. With inflation also falling rapidly, the European Central Bank has not sought to stop financial markets assuming its main interest rate will be cut next Thursday from 3.25 per cent to 2.75 per cent or below.

Public ECB comments show the bank remains cautious about the pace of cuts, pointing to a half-point reduction next week – the same as in October and this month. But economic news has been consistently gloomier than expected, strengthening the case for a larger cut.

The ECB is unlikely to go as far as the Swiss central bank, which slashed its target interest rate by a full percentage point last week, let alone the 1.5 percentage point cut by the Bank of England. But 75 basis points seems a distinct possibility.

The size of next week’s ECB rate cut will depend on how it expects the eurozone to perform in the next few months. The ECB will be hesitant in predicting any turnround, while its “risk management” assessment could conclude faster rate cuts are needed.

Governing council members have expressed concern that rate cuts will be less effective in kick-starting growth than in the past.

Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an ECB executive board member, argued this week that in “spaghetti westerns”, the “goodies” won if they shot first – but they had to hit the target:

“There is no scene more depressing than one in which the cavalry is surrounded, without any ammunition left.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbPsRgceQ4Qb3FCzWb7D2uymmkLQD94NCQ6G0

UN: financial crisis a burden on climate change

By VANESSA GERA

Associated Press

November 27, 2008

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The global financial crisis will make it harder for countries to agree on an ambitious new treaty to combat global warming and underscores the need to make green technologies profitable, the U.N. climate chief said Thursday.

"Climate change is an environmental problem looking for an economic answer," Yvo de Boer said at a news conference in Warsaw. "The challenge...is to achieve green economic growth."

De Boer spoke ahead of a major two-week climate change conference that begins Monday in Poznan, Poland. Participants from more than 190 countries will work out the details of a climate change accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.

"The financial crisis will throw a shadow over the climate change negotiations," said de Boer, executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "That is why I put so much emphasis on the climate regime becoming self-financing."

Citing an example, he said that could involve the auctioning of CO2 emission rights in industrialized countries.

De Boer said a worldwide financial slump will lead initially to lower emissions of carbon-rich gases as economic activity slows down. But the overall impact is damaging because the slowdown will hurt the world's poorest people more than anyone else.

Lower oil prices also will make investing in green energy projects less attractive. And the pool of investment capital available to fund them already has shrunk.

De Boer cited a 2006 report by British economist Nicholas Stern, which warned that if the world does not act to halt global warming, it will cause an economic catastrophe on the scale of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined. [CLIMATE CHANGE DELUSION]

"I hope the financial crisis will not lead to a choice for cheap and dirty technologies because in both the energy sector and in industry those technologies have a lifetime of 30 to 50 years," de Boer said.

The Poznan conference marks a key step in the search for a deal to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which is expected to be signed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009.

De Boer spoke at a two-day conference of government officials and representatives of some of the most polluting industries — steel, aluminum and concrete — in order to include them in the push to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/no-time-for-europe-to-go-flaky-says-stern/#more-591

No Time for Europe to Go Flaky, Says Stern

By James Kanter

New York Times

November 26, 2008

Nicholas Stern, a British economist and leading expert on climate change, says the European Union needs to maintain its resolve on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The European Union should agree on a strong package of measures to tackle greenhouse gas emissions even if that means making concessions to satisfy reluctant countries like Poland, according to Nicholas Stern, one of the world’s foremost authorities on climate change.

“It’s absolutely crucial that they hold together on this,” Mr. Stern said Tuesday in a interview by telephone. “Now is not the time for Europe to go flaky.”

Mr. Stern gained international stature in 2006 when Tony Blair, then the British prime minister, presented Mr. Stern’s report on the economics of climate change. Mr. Stern said Tuesday that he was concerned about discord among E.U. countries over proposed laws that would raise costs for companies like coal-burning utilities and for countries like Poland, one of the bloc’s heaviest polluters.

Policy leaders like Mr. Stern say that negotiations next month to lay the groundwork for a new global emissions treaty are more likely to succeed if the E.U. agrees to an ambitious package of measures. Such an agreement would send a message to the rest of the world, including developing countries like China and India, that richer countries are prepared to do their part to cut greenhouse gases.

But efforts to bring aboard some skeptical nations so far have failed. In particular, Poland and other coal-dependent EU members in Eastern Europe oppose plans to require power stations to buy all of their emissions permits starting in 2013.

They say the requirement would raise energy prices while lowering economic growth. Most permits are given away free. Last week, Poland rejected as too onerous a proposal to continue the free distribution of half of its permits for generating electricity until 2016.

“I do think Poland’s needs need to be taken into account,” Mr. Stern said.

E.U. nations still could reach a compromise before a European meeting in mid-December. But the disagreement highlights how difficult it may be to overcome the tendency of nations to protect their industries under the expanded global carbon-trading system that will be under discussion at the meeting, to be held in Poznan, Poland.

[PROOF POSITIVE OF DISGUISED ENVIRONMENTALLY REGULATORY BARRIERS TO TRADE!!]

International deals aside, Mr. Stern said, “people are willing and keen for the own governments to get on with” cutting emissions through direct measures. Mr. Stern said that was borne out by a study of global attitudes on climate change to be released.

Wednesday by the bank HSBC, where Mr. Stern is a special adviser on economic development and climate change.

The research was based on a 20-minute Internet survey of 12,000 respondents in 12 countries — including Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Mexico, Britain and the United States - from mid-September to early October.

Nearly twice as many respondents said they wanted governments to invest in ways of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, compared with those who supported pursuing international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol.

Respondents also said governments should focus more on increasing investment in renewable energy, halting deforestation and conserving water resources than on carbon markets or taxes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7746126.stm

Coughing up [CHOKING] to curb climate change

Peter Lilley

BBC VIEWPOINT

November 25, 2008

The UK's Climate Change Bill, which commits future governments to cut CO2 emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, is about to receive Royal Assent but at what cost? Peter Lilley MP asks why ministers failed to mention that the legislation could cost each family in the UK up to £10,000.

Can you spare £10,000 for a good cause? The government thinks you can - despite the recession.

Parliament passed the Climate Change Bill, which is set to receive Royal Assent in the coming days, which will force you to cough up.

This legislation binds future British governments to introduce unilaterally, even if other countries do not follow suit, massive spending programmes which could cost up to £200bn; that's £10,000 from every family in the country.

I'm not talking about rescuing the banks. That involved loans which we should eventually get back. This is real money in taxes and lost incomes - money you will never see again.

The bank rescue was to save the economy. This is to save the planet.

Costing the Earth

Hold on! I hear you exclaim. No-one asked us if we could afford £10,000. We haven't heard anything about a £200 billion package. That's enormous.

That's right; it is enormous and you didn't hear anything about it. That is the scandal.

Neither Parliament nor most of the media bothered to discuss the cost of one of the most immense projects ever adopted in this country. Indeed, Parliament wafted it through without even discussing its cost and with only five votes against.

In my experience, our biggest mistakes are made when Parliament and the media are virtually unanimous and MPs switch off their critical faculties in a spasm of moral self-congratulation.

That is what happened with this Bill.

We all want to save the planet from overheating, just as we all want to save the financial system from meltdown. We accept that both rescues may cost us a lot.

But a healthy democracy should at least debate the cost, compare it with the likely benefits (or costs of doing nothing) and consider whether we can achieve the same ends at less cost.

Had MPs or commentators bothered to read the government's own estimates of the potential costs and benefits of the Climate Change Bill - the Impact Assessment - they would have found some extraordinary things.

Admittedly, on this occasion government failed to publish copies of the assessment in the normal way so it took a little effort to obtain. Apparently, I was the only MP to obtain a copy.

False economy

The contents of the Impact Assessment are astounding. Whereas it puts the Bill's potential cost as up to £205bn, it says the maximum benefits of this massive expenditure is £110bn.

I am all in favour of taking out an insurance policy, as the government describes it, against the threat of global warming.

But would you insure your home with a company if they charged premiums which could be double the value of your house? There must be a better insurance policy than this.

Moreover, the government admits that their estimate of the "maximum" cost is far from being the real maximum since it omits three huge items.

First, the Impact Assessment admits that it is "unable to capture transition costs which could be 1.3% to 2% of GDP in 2020".

Second, they make the fantastically optimistic assumption that all businesses will know and instantly adopt the most cost efficient technologies to achieve carbon savings.

Third, the assessment "cannot capture trade and competitiveness impacts"; in particular, the "relatively high risks of the transfer of productive capital to countries without carbon policies".

In other words, if we pursue the policies in the Climate Change Bill unilaterally, without others doing the same, we could end up driving UK business abroad without reducing carbon emissions because they will still be spewing forth carbon.

Yet this bill legally binds future British governments unilaterally to spend billions of pounds on trying to prevent climate change even if other countries do not follow our lead.

There is a case for Britain taking the lead, but the bill should surely only become binding if a critical mass of other countries follow our lead; we cannot save the planet single-handed.

The bill originally bound governments by law to meet targets for reducing carbon emissions by 26% by 2020 and 60% by 2050.

The new climate minister, Ed Miliband, amended it to raise the final target by a third to 80% - thereby increasing the likely cost by at least a third, although no-one deigned to mention this. He has refused to reveal the extra cost until after the bill becomes law.

These are pretty onerous targets, yet the UN says Britain will fall far short of our existing target to cut 20% off the 1990 level of carbon emissions by 2010.

Climate activists hope that making the new targets legally binding will somehow ensure they will be met. They clearly believe that if only King Canute had passed a law requiring the tide to go out, it would have done so!

The new law will not punish ministers if they fail to achieve these targets. The sole effect of enshrining the targets in statute will be to open government policies to judicial review. Judges will then assess whether current measures will achieve the targets.

I have little faith in any government's ability to meet those targets cost effectively. But empowering judges to prescribe additional measures costing billions of pounds, without being accountable to the electorate, is a recipe for huge additional costs.

Stern words

The oddest thing about the government's cost/benefit analysis is that it contradicts the Stern Review.

Sir Nicholas Stern concluded that the cost of preventing climate change would be small relative to the benefits.

Yet the Impact Assessment reveals that the costs could dwarf the potential benefits.

The Stern Review was much criticised for resorting to unprecedented means to inflate the benefits artificially.

In particular, he used an astonishingly low discount rate thereby giving a huge weight to benefits that will not accrue until centuries ahead. In fact, half the benefits he expects will not occur until after the year 2800!

Ministers have admitted to me that their Impact Assessment rejected Stern's dubious figures and used conventional discount rates.

Yet they still quote Stern's conclusions to justify their Bill and never mention their own more recent calculations.

What a disgrace that our legislators failed to scrutinise and amend this Bill as rigorously as the US Congress examined the Paulson package before agreeing it.

If the Impact Assessment is right and Stern wrong there is a strong case for spending more of taxpayers' billions on adapting to climate change and less on trying to prevent it, but we will not have that option.

Peter Lilley is Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilDZhe7VXRCY-zNcNcAul_qS0bLQ

Financial crisis clouds EU's climate change plans

Agence France Presse

Oct 11, 2008

BRUSSELS (AFP) — The financial crisis and slumping economic activity are threatening Europe's ambitious plans to slash greenhouse gas emissions, with governments eager to avoid saddling companies with additional burdens.

"The Germans are giving up and the Italians are getting ready to follow," said one European negotiator on condition of anonymity.

The European Union's French presidency wants EU leaders to agree to "keep the balance and the fundamental framework" of Europe's ambitious plans to cut carbon dioxide emissions, according to draft conclusions obtained by AFP.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants EU nations to confirm the tough objectives imbedded in the plan.

"It's not certain that this will be accepted," a French diplomat acknowledged.

Likewise, at the European Commission, a senior official said: "I do not think that there will be very ambitious conclusions on this point."

"The governments are on the defensive, they are less favourable towards the agenda and discovered a lot of problems," he said.

Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso aims to put them on the spot by asking them "to say whether they consider the objectives to no longer be justified and if this is the case then to assume their responsibilities," according to the source.

EU governments, the European Commission and the European Parliament are in the midst of difficult negotiations over the plans with the aim of striking a deal by the end of the year.

"If member states are no longer up to the challenge then we might as well stop," a European negotiator said.

Europe aspires to lead the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions with plans to cut such pollution by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. Some of the road has already been travelled with a six percent reduction registered in 2005.

Heavy industry such as steelworks, power and petrochemical plants, which generate 40 percent of the EU's emissions each year, will have to carry a particularly heavy burden.

They are supposed to cut their emissions by 21 percent from 2005 levels and pay for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit starting in 2013.

Industry has baulked at the duty, which it says will make European companies uncompetitive against rivals in China, India, Russia and the United States.

Although lawmakers at the European Parliament rejected on Tuesday a German demand to water down the constraints on industry, Berlin remains up in arms.

"Manufacturing sector companies facing the toughest international competition should benefit from 100 percent free emission quotas until an international agreement is reached," the BusinessEurope association said on Thursday.

Their demand has the support of German and Polish leaders, who are working hard to form a blocking minority.

The French EU presidency has brought out a compromise proposal which would offer 100 percent free emissions quota but just for specified industries.

"The current context is worsening concerns. We have to respond while not undermining the targets and balances on the plan," said French European Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1222005723.17

Economic crisis threatens EU measures on climate change

EU Business

21 September 2008

BRUXELLES) - The recent economic downturn could push the European Union to adopt more modest ambitions in its fight against climate change.

Although the European Commission has said it wants to cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020, business leaders oppose the use of fines to oblige industry to reduce its emissions -- especially in the current economic crisis.

The cost to industry is estimated at some 44 billion euros per year between 2013 and 2020, with a tonne (1.1 US tons) of C02 costing 30 euros.

Business leaders have denounced the policy as a "tax", threatening to take their investments elsewhere and move their more polluting activities out of Europe.

Faced with the threat of job losses, governments are feeling the pressure.

"As the economic situation becomes more challenging, it's normal that government becomes more defensive on climate change as the required efforts will lead to additional costs in the short term," a senior Commission official told AFP on the condition of anonimity.

A number of European politicans are now speaking openly about diluting, or even abandoning the project.

"This plan is garbage. It's politically correct, but it won't happen," former Italian prime minister Guilano Amato said at the end of August.

Renato Brunetta, Italy's minister for innovation, has been equally blunt.

"If it happens, it would kill the economic upturn. No one needs to kill themselves," said Brunetta, a trained economist.

One negotiator involved in the talks between the Commission and member states, said: "We're hearing these arguments more and more, notably from countries such as Italy and Germany, where industry is increasingly worried."

Brussels was taking the threat very seriously, the negociator added.

The EU's Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has nevertheless also publicly called on politicans and businesses not to oppose the measures.

And European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said: "I'm counting on Mr. Sarkozy's authority that the package will be adopted without being watered down before the end of the year."

France has made this plan one of its priorities during its EU presidency. But Sarkozy's own difficulties finding agreement at home on how to finance his "environmental revolution" suggest the size of the task facing the EU.

French negotiators still have a few weeks and two ministerial meetings to agree on a common position to be presented to the European parliament in October, with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of the year.

"There has been no fundamental breakthrough as yet, but the final phase of negotiations has begun and provided the economic situation does not worsen, we hope to find an agreement," one negociator said.

The plan has two goals, the same source said: "It's about putting in place the tools to maintain European industry's competiveness and helping member states achieve their national objectives.

But the negotiator cautioned: "Some decisions are very political and will involve trade-offs."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/campaigning/recent_successes/climate_change_bill_success2/index.cfm

Let's celebrate!

WWF UK Climate Change Campaign

27 November 2008 is a historic date for both WWF and the planet. Just over a year since the UK Climate Change Bill was first introduced to parliament, the Queen gave her Royal Assent to the first piece of legislation anywhere in the world aimed at setting binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s been a year of intense political lobbying and public campaigning by WWF, our campaigners and our partners in Stop Climate Chaos − a coalition of some 60 environmental, development and faith-based organisations. However, at last, we can celebrate success in achieving the Climate Change Act.

WWF would like to thank all of our campaigners and supporters in helping to make the case for a strong, effective Climate Change Act.

How we made a difference Our campaigning work has helped to strengthen the resulting legislation in a number of crucial ways:

Emissions target: the new law includes the emissions target we called for – a reduction in UK emissions by 2050 of at least 80%. That’s 20% more than the original government plans. What’s more, all greenhouse gases are now included in the target – the initial proposals considered CO2 only. Calls for a 80% target from leading UK environmental scientists, in a statement coordinated by WWF in January 2008, can be seen as a turning point in the campaign. But continued lobbying throughout the year, including the delivery of an 8,300-name WWF petition to Downing Street, also helped keep up the pressure.

Boats and planes: a key achievement was to ensure the government included emissions from international aviation and shipping within the scope of the legislation. When setting the UK’s carbon budgets (legally-binding limits on carbon emissions), the government must now factor in the anticipated emissions from aviation and shipping and set reduction targets for other sectors accordingly. This is a great step forward and means the new Act will now account for all UK emissions.

Budgets, credits and reporting: another important area where the Act has been significantly strengthened is the placing of limits on the number of carbon credits that can be bought. The original Climate Change Bill would have allowed unlimited use of carbon credits to achieve emissions reductions – meaning that the required reductions needn’t have been made in the UK. Responding to continuing pressure from campaigners and opposition parties, the government introduced a limit on the number of carbon credits it can buy. Whilst not perfect − the government will still get to decide what the limit should be and it will not apply to all credits − this amendment is a significant improvement.

By a setting a limit on the use of carbon credits, the government will now come under much greater scrutiny and pressure to ensure that it implements policies that make real reductions in the UK, such as through greater energy efficiency and renewable energy, and create new green jobs.

Finally, the government has also committed itself to introducing mandatory carbon disclosure for companies from 2012. This means UK corporations will have to be more transparent about their emissions. It should improve business behaviour and create an incentive to invest in low-carbon technologies which will also help move us to a low-carbon, cleaner future.

What next for campaigning on climate change? As with many of these things, the Climate Change Act victory is a case of having won a battle, but not the war. Your support is still needed with the following campaigns to ensure we do all we can to protect species, habitats and people from the worst impacts of climate change.

As a founder member of Stop Climate Chaos, WWF will continue to campaign with partner organisations to call on the government to reject plans to build a new coal-fired power station in Kingsnorth in Kent, and instead encourage investment in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.

Strong UK climate change legislation should help set the level of ambition and commitment at an international level – in Europe and globally. Together with Climate Action Network Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe and Greenpeace Europe, WWF is campaigning for the EU to show leadership in the development of its ‘Climate and Energy Package’ – proposals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions at a European level.

WWF will soon start its most ambitious campaign ever to deliver a new and ambitious international agreement on climate change.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.carbonica.org/NewsItem.aspx?NewsId=27

Ambitious Climate Change Bill Passed in UK

Carbonica

29/10/2008

Carbonica fully supports the UK's Climate Change Bill, including amendments for emissions generated by aviation and shipping. We believe that this Bill is exemplary, and we very much hope that it will have an event-less transit through the House of Lords and become law, therefore making Britain a pioneer and world leader in climate change legislation.

This Bill is the beginning of a greater awareness of the urgency to tackle climate change. We applaud the magnificient work of climate change campaigners, scientists, MPs, government advisors and the media who have made this ground-breaking legislation happen. A selection of articles on this item of news is given below.

Please click on the links to read the full articles. Carbonica is not responsible for the content of external links.

"People power can beat climate change" by Lord David Puttnam, BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7693973.stm

"UK industries to be forced to cut CO2 emissions" by Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/29/eacarbs129.xml

"UK passes first ever climate bill" politics.co.uk http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/environment-and-rural-affairs/uk-passes-first-ever-climate-bill-$1246730.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/16/greenpolitics-edmiliband

Government pledges to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050: New climate change secretary Ed Miliband sets new goal to replace former target of 60%

By Deborah Summers, Damian Carrington and agencies

guardian.co.uk

October 16 2008

The government today committed the UK to cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 80% by the middle of the century in a bid to tackle climate change.

In a move that was widely welcomed by environmental campaigners, Ed Miliband, the new energy and climate change secretary, said that the current 60% target would be replaced by the higher goal in the climate change bill.

Miliband told MPs that the tough economic conditions were not an excuse to "row back" on the commitment to tackle global warming.

He accepted the recommendations of the government-appointed Climate Change Committee, chaired by Lord Turner, which said last week that the UK ought to commit to an 80% reduction from 1990 levels for all greenhouse gases and covering all sectors.

He also pledged to amend the energy bill to create "feed-in tariffs", allowing small-scale energy producers – such as homes with wind turbines or solar panels – to sell electricity at a guaranteed price.

And he issued a warning to energy companies to act "in a satisfactory way" to reduce charges for customers with pre-payment meters and those not connected to the gas main.

He said the government expects "rapid action or explanation to remedy any abuses" and warned if the firms do not act then ministers would consult on legislation to prevent "unfair pricing".

Dr Doug Parr, Greenpeace's chief scientist, said: "This is a hugely encouraging first move from the new climate change secretary. In a decade in power Labour has never adopted a target so ambitious, far-reaching and internationally significant as this.

"To meet it will require determined action from Gordon Brown and every one of his successors for the next four decades. Hard choices will be made that will touch every Briton, but it can and must be done."

He added: "Ed Miliband obviously understands the urgency of the threat we face from climate change. He is absolutely right to say Britain should set an example to the rest of the world in tackling this issue, and we will support him wholeheartedly if the decisions he takes in the coming weeks and months genuinely reflect this ambition."

Ruth Davis, the head of climate change at the RSPB [The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds], said: "This is one of the most far-sighted and far-reaching climate change initiative any government could take and is testament to the efforts of campaigners."

Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth's executive director, said: "Miliband's admission that pollution from international aviation and shipping will be dealt with outside the bill is a sign that these industries are being picked out for special treatment yet again.

"The Committee on Climate Change made it clear that we have to reduce all carbon emissions by 80%. We cannot leave the cuts in aviation and shipping emissions to chance."

Greg Clark, the shadow climate change secretary, also welcomed the announcements. He said: "The choice between aggressive and ambitious action on carbon reduction and a successful, powerful economy is, in fact, not a choice at all - they are one and the same."

Miliband, making his first statement to the Commons as head of the newly created department, said: "In tough economic times, some people ask whether we should retreat from our climate-change objectives.

"In our view it would be quite wrong to row back and those who say we should misunderstand the relationship between the economic and environmental tasks we face."

The 2006 Stern report showed that the costs of doing nothing "are greater than the costs of acting", he said.

The climate change bill would be amended to set the higher target, which "will be binding in law".

Miliband said: "However, we all know that signing up to an 80% target in 2050 when most of us will not be around is the easy part. The hard part is meeting it and meeting the milestones that will show we're on track."

The Climate Change Committee will advise on the first 15 years of carbon budgets in December, "national limits to our total emissions within which we will have to live as a country".

The announcement on feed-in tariffs will be welcomed by Labour backbenchers, who staged the biggest revolt of Gordon Brown's leadership over the issue.

In April, 35 backbenchers rebelled on the issue during debate on the energy bill, with two more Labour MPs acting as tellers.

Miliband said: "Having heard the debate on this issue, including from many colleagues in this house, on this side of the house and on others, I also believe that complementing the renewables obligation for large-scale projects, guaranteed prices for small-scale electricity generation – feed-in tariffs – have the potential to play an important role, as they do in other countries."

Last week Ofgem, the energy regulator, highlighted "unjustified" higher charges for 4 million customers without mains gas.

The regulator also believes that many homes using pre-payment meters - often the poorest customers - are being "overcharged".

Miliband said: "Unfair pricing which hits the most vulnerable hardest is completely unacceptable. I made that clear to the representatives of the big six energy companies when I met them yesterday.

"I also told them that the government expects rapid action or explanation to remedy any abuses. I will meet them again in a month to hear what they have done."

He added: "If the companies don't act in a satisfactory way, and speedily, then we will consult on legislation to prevent unfair pricing differentials."

Miliband said the measures announced today were part of an energy and climate change policy "that is fair and sustainable, which meets our obligations to today's and future generations".

Clark said there had been a "decade-long void" in the government's policy towards energy, in which "successive ministers have looked the other way rather than address the issue of future energy needs".

He welcomed the acceptance of Turner's 80% target, saying: "We have always said that we should be guided by the science on that matter."

But he called for the target to be kept under constant review, saying that just eight years ago 60% was considered to be the right number.

Clark also pressed Miliband to "lead the world" on carbon capture and storage by committing to three UK-based demonstration projects and said smart metering should be introduced for microgeneration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/129/08129.1-6.html#D003

House of Commons

Session 2007 - 08

Climate Change Bill [HL]

A Bill [AS AMENDED IN PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE]

To:

Set a target for the year 2050 for the reduction of targeted greenhouse gas emissions;

to provide for a system of carbon budgeting;

to establish a Committee on Climate Change;

to confer powers to establish trading schemes for the purpose of limiting greenhouse gas emissions or encouraging activities that reduce such emissions or remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere;

to make provision about adaptation to climate change;

to confer powers to make schemes for providing financial incentives to produce less domestic waste and to recycle more of what is produced;

to make provision about the collection of household waste;

to confer powers to make provision about charging for single use carrier bags;

to amend the provisions of the Energy Act 2004 about renewable transport fuel obligations;

to make other provision about climate change; and

for connected purposes

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

Part 1

Carbon target and budgeting

1. The target for 2050

(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 60% lower than the 1990 baseline.

(2) “The 1990 baseline” means the amount of net UK emissions of targeted greenhouse gases for the year 1990.

2. Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year

(1) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) amend the percentage specified in section 1(1);

(b) amend section 1 to provide for a different year to be the baseline year.

(2) The power in subsection (1)(a) may only be exercised—

(a) if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in—

(i) scientific knowledge about climate change, or

(ii) European or international law or policy, that make it appropriate to do so, or

(b) in connection with the making of—

(i) an order under section 23 (designation of further greenhouse gases as targeted greenhouse gases), or

(ii) regulations under section 29 (emissions from international aviation or international shipping).

(3) The developments in scientific knowledge referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) in relation to the first exercise of the power in subsection (1)(a), developments since June 2000 (the date of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 22nd Report, “Energy - the Changing Climate”);

(b) in relation to a subsequent exercise of that power, developments since the evidential basis for the previous exercise was established.

(4) The power in subsection (1)(b) may only be exercised if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in European or international law or policy that make it appropriate to do so.

(5) An order under subsection (1)(b) may make consequential amendments of other references in this Act to the baseline year.

(6) An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

...4. Carbon budgets

(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State—

(a) to set for each succeeding period of five years beginning with the period 2008-2012 (“budgetary periods”) an amount for the net UK carbon account (the “carbon budget”), and

(b) to ensure that the net UK carbon account for a budgetary period does not exceed the carbon budget.

(2) The carbon budget for a budgetary period may be set at any time after this Part comes into force, and must be set—

(a) for the periods 2008-2012, 2013-2017 and 2018-2022, before 1st June 2009;

(b) for any later period, not later than 30th June in the 12th year before the beginning of the period in question.

5. Level of carbon budgets

(1) The carbon budget—

(a) for the budgetary period including the year 2020, must be such that the annual equivalent of the carbon budget for the period is at least 26% lower than the 1990 baseline;

(b) for the budgetary period including the year 2050, must be such that the annual equivalent of the carbon budget for the period is lower than the 1990 baseline by at least the percentage specified in section 1 (the target for 2050);

(c) for the budgetary period including any later year specified by order of the Secretary of State, must be such that the annual equivalent of the carbon budget for the period is—

(i) lower than the 1990 baseline by at least the percentage so specified, or

(ii) at least the minimum percentage so specified, and not more than the maximum percentage so specified, lower than the 1990 baseline.

(2) The “annual equivalent”, in relation to the carbon budget for a period, means the amount of the carbon budget for the period divided by the number of years in the period.

(3) An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

6. Amendment of target percentages

(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend—

(a) the percentage specified in section 5(1)(a);

(b) any percentage specified under section 5(1)(c).

(2) That power may only be exercised—

(a) if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in—

(i) scientific knowledge about climate change, or

(ii) European or international law or policy, that make it appropriate to do so, or

(b) in connection with the making of—

(i) an order under section 23 (designation of further greenhouse gases as targeted greenhouse gases), or

(ii) regulations under section 29 (emissions from international aviation or international shipping).

(3) The developments in scientific knowledge referred to in subsection (2)(a) are—

(a) in relation to the first exercise of the power conferred by this section in relation to the percentage specified in section 5(1)(a), developments since June 2000 (the date of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s 22nd Report, “Energy - the Changing Climate”);

(b) in relation to the first exercise of the power conferred by this section in relation to any percentage specified under section 5(1)(c), developments since the evidential basis for the order setting that percentage was established;

(c) in relation to a subsequent exercise of any of those powers, developments since the evidential basis for the previous exercise was established.

(4) An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

...Targeted greenhouse gases

23. Targeted greenhouse gases

(1) In this Part a “targeted greenhouse gas” means—

(a) carbon dioxide, and

(b) any other greenhouse gas designated as a targeted greenhouse gas by order made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The order may make such consequential amendments of the provisions of this Act as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

(3) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult the other national authorities, and

(b) obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.

(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after giving its advice to the Secretary of State, the Committee must publish that advice in such manner as it considers appropriate.

(5) If the order makes provision different from that recommended by the Committee, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.

(6) The statement may be published in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

...29. Emissions from international aviation or international shipping

(1) Emissions of greenhouse gases from international aviation or international shipping do not count as emissions from sources in the United Kingdom for the purposes of this Part, except as provided by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order define what is to be regarded for this purpose as international aviation or international shipping. Any such order is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

(3) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of five years beginning with the passing of this Act—

(a) make provision by regulations as to the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, emissions from international aviation or international shipping are to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as emissions from sources in the United Kingdom, or

(b) lay before Parliament a report explaining why regulations making such provision have not been made.

(4) The expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (3) does not affect the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section.

(5) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make provision only in relation to emissions of a targeted greenhouse gas;

(b) may, in particular, provide for such emissions to be regarded as emissions from sources in the United Kingdom if they relate to the transport of passengers or goods to or from the United Kingdom.

(6) Regulations under this section may make provision—

(a) as to the period or periods (whether past or future) in which emissions of the targeted greenhouse gas are to be taken into account as UK emissions of that gas, and

(b) as to the manner in which such emissions are to be taken into account in determining the 1990 baseline in relation to those periods.

(7) They may, in particular—

(a) designate a different base year, or

(b) designate a number of base years, and provide for the emissions in that year, or the average amount of emissions in those years, to be taken into account as if part of the 1990 baseline.

30. Procedure for regulations under section 29

(1) Before making regulations under section 29, the Secretary of State must obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after giving its advice to the Secretary of State, the Committee must publish that advice in such manner as it considers appropriate.

(3) If the regulations make provision different from that recommended by the Committee, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.

(4) The statement may be published in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(5) Regulations under section 29 are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

...Part 2

The Committee on Climate Change

31. The Committee on Climate Change

(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Committee on Climate Change or, in Welsh, as y Pwyllgor ar Newid Hinsawdd (referred to in this Part as “the Committee”).

(2) Schedule 1 contains further provisions about the Committee.

Functions of the Committee

32. Advice on level of 2050 target

(1) It is the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State on—

(a) whether the percentage specified in section 1(1) (the target for 2050) should be amended, and

(b) if so, what the amended percentage should be.

(2) Advice given by the Committee under this section must also contain the reasons for that advice.

(3) The Committee must give its advice under this section before 1st December 2008.

(4) The Committee must, at the time it gives its advice under this section to the Secretary of State, send a copy to the other national authorities.

(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after giving its advice to the Secretary of State, the Committee must publish that advice in such manner as it considers appropriate.

33. Advice in connection with carbon budgets

(1) It is the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State, in relation to each budgetary period, on—

(a) the level of the carbon budget for the period,

(b) the extent to which the carbon budget for the period should be met—

(i) by reducing the amount of net UK emissions of targeted greenhouse gases, or

(ii) by the use of carbon units that in accordance with regulations under sections 25 and 26 may be credited to the net UK carbon account for the period,

(i) by the sectors of the economy covered by trading schemes (taken as a whole);

(ii) by the sectors of the economy not so covered (taken as a whole), and

d) the sectors of the economy in which there are particular opportunities for contributions to be made towards meeting the carbon budget for the period through reductions in emissions of targeted greenhouse gases.

(2) In relation to the budgetary period 2008-2012, the Committee must also advise the Secretary of State on—

(a) whether it would be consistent with its advice on the level of the carbon budget for the period to set a carbon budget such that the annual equivalent for the period was lower than the 1990 baseline by 20%, and

(b) the costs and benefits of setting such a budget.

(3) Advice given by the Committee under this section must also contain the reasons for that advice.

(4) The Committee must give its advice under this section—

(a) for the budgetary periods 2008-2012, 2013-2017 and 2018-2022, before 1st December 2008;

(b) for any later period, not later than six months before the last date for setting the carbon budget for the period (see section 4(2)(b)).

(5) The Committee must, at the time it gives its advice under this section to the Secretary of State, send a copy to the other national authorities.

(6) As soon as is reasonably practicable after giving its advice under this section the Committee must publish that advice in such manner as it considers appropriate.

... Supplementary provisions

37. General ancillary powers

(1) The Committee may do anything that appears to it necessary or appropriate for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying out of its functions.

(2) In particular the Committee may—

(a) enter into contracts,

(b) acquire, hold and dispose of property,

(d) accept gifts, and

(e) invest money.

(3) In exercising its functions, the Committee may—

(a) gather information and carry out research and analysis,

(b) commission others to carry out such activities, and

(c) publish the results of such activities carried out by the Committee or others.

(4) The Committee must have regard to the desirability of involving the public in the exercise of its functions.

Obama's 'Green' Goblins: 'Change We CANNOT Believe In'

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:09:00 +0000

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obamas-green-jobs-revolution-984631.html

Obama's green jobs revolution [FACT OR FICTION?]

Democrat will lead effort to curb world's dependence on oil; Plans to create five million new posts in clean energy projects [BUT FACTS ARE THE DARNDEST THINGS! THEY KEEP GETTING IN THE WAY!!]

By Geoffrey Lean in San Francisco

and Leonard Doyle in Washington

2 November 2008

Barack Obama is promising a $150bn "Apollo project" to bring jobs and energy security to the US through a new alternative energy economy, if his final push for votes brings victory in the presidential election on Tuesday.

[See: The New Apollo Project, at:

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:nQS6M1Px6-oJ:www.apolloalliance.org/+apollo+project&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ].

"That's going to be my number one priority when I get into office," Mr Obama has said of his "green recovery" plans. Making his arguments in a radio address yesterday, the Democratic favourite promised: "If you give me your vote on Tuesday, we won't just win this election. Together, we will change this country and change the world."

The election has come during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, but he declared: "We'll invest $15bn a year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating five million new green jobs that pay well, can't be outsourced and help end our dependence on foreign oil." The appeal of the idea that clean energy could help to kick-start the economy is such that Mr Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, has also promised "millions" of green jobs if he wins.

[BUT, OBAMA CANNOT DELIVER THIS GREEN PROMISE BECAUSE THE REALITY DIFFERS FROM THE UTOPIAN DREAM HE ESPOUSES. See: ITSSD Reports: OBAMA Deceives American Public: 'PUTS OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST' With 'Green Collar Jobs' SCAM That 'Outsources' Windmill Manufacturing, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/itssd-reports-obama-deceives-american.html ].

That was looking less likely yesterday, despite Republican strategists predicting a historic upset victory as they pointed to polls showing Mr Obama's lead narrowing in "must-win" states such as Ohio. Despite the growing confidence of the Obama campaign, Mr McCain's forces are now engaged in a massive final effort, making 17 million phone calls or door knocks at the homes of carefully targeted voters in the dying hours of the election.

Mr McCain's final blitz will see him make stops in seven states tomorrow. As he told a small crowd of voters at the weekend: "The pundits, my friends, have written us off as they've done before. But we're closing... and we're going to win Ohio." A major handicap he faces, however, is a surge in early voting by Democrats – a reversal of the pattern that delivered George Bush his 2004 victory. In Florida alone, 200,000 more Democrats have already voted than Republicans, and a high turnout – predictions are that 130 million Americans will vote, the largest number since 1960 – is thought to favour Mr Obama.

In the mayhem of the election campaign, Mr Obama has yet to deliver a major speech about his renewable energy plans. But he has pledged to create five million new "green collar jobs", largely by greatly expanding the use of renewable energy, which should supply a tenth of America's electricity within four years, insulating a million homes a year and to put a million rechargeable "plug-in hybrid cars" on the road by 2015.

He also wants the US motor industry to take a lead in producing environmentally friendly vehicles rather than 4x4s. He promises to invest in clean engine technology, to increase America's hitherto lax car fuel economy standards by 4 per cent a year, and to boost sales of green cars by giving a $7,000 tax credit to people who buy them. And he has pledged to convert the White House fleet to plug-in hybrids within a year of taking office.

There is growing acceptance from economists in the US that a Green "New Deal" should be a fundamental part of the solution to the financial crisis and to America's long-term security concerns. [THIS WILL ESTABLISH THE FUNDAMENTALS FOR GREEN GLOBAL GOVERNANCE BASED-SOCIALISM].

[See: Europe & United Nations Try to Cram Down US Throat Socialist Financial and Environmental Global Governance; Will Bush & Successor Swallow?, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/europe-un-us-blue-party-cram-down-bush.html ].

At the same time, British ministers are planning a huge increase in environmentally friendly investment as a central part of its economic rescue plan. Japan's Prime Minister, Taro Aso, has called the green economy "a great opportunity for new growth". And plans are being laid in the Australian treasury for a 3,000 per cent growth in green jobs over the next decades.

But it is the American plans that could have the greatest effect in dragging the world economy out of crisis. Mr Obama believes that a new clean-energy economy "can be the engine that drives us into the future in the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades".

The head of Mr Obama's transition team, John Podesta, has called for "a new vision for the economic revitalisation of the nation and a restoration of America's leadership in the world", adding: "We must seize this precious opportunity to mobilise the country and the international community towards a brighter and more prosperous future." [IN THE NAME OF 'GLOBAL SOLIDARITY'!]

[See: ''Yes We Can' - 'Crises' Used as Pretense for EURO-Socialist Global Governance-based Wealth Redistribution - 'Change We Can Believe In', ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/yes-we-can-crises-used-as-pretense-for.html ].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following news article reveals the truth about Obama's European-inspired GREEN energy plan. It will cost many companies not only most of their profits, but also their existence. As a result of the egregiously high costs of complying with Obama's proposed European-style GREEN energy regulations, these and other energy companies will end up passing the costs downstream to consumers. Eventually, all businesses, no matter the industry sector in which they operate, goods as well as services, will have no choice but to pass the higher costs of doing business downstream to consumers. In addition, it will result in thousands of job losses in the U.S. energy sector, the failure to utilize perhaps the most bountiful and least expensive natural resource within the United States, and will inevitably prevent the U.S. from achieving energy security, thus, causing an outflow of $$billions of dollars more of U.S. taxpayer monies to countries with governmental regimes hostile to U.S. national interests. Guess who loses under an Obama GREEN energy plan?? Americans citizens/consumers!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wvrecord.com/news/215679-coal-official-calls-obama-comments-unbelievable

Coal official calls Obama comments 'unbelievable'

11/2/2008 4:37 PM

By Chris Dickerson -Statehouse Bureau

CHARLESTON - At least one state coal industry leader said he was shocked by comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made earlier this year concerning his plan to aggressively charge polluters for carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there," Obama said in a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that was made public today first on the Web site newsbusters.org, which calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." The story later was linked on The Drudge Report.

An audio excerpt from the interview can be found at YouTube.

"I was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter," Obama continued. "That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Calls and e-mails to West Virginia Obama campaign officials seeking comment for this story were not returned as of Sunday evening.

According to the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training, the coal industry provides about 40,000 direct jobs in the state, including those for miners, mine contractors, coal preparation plant employees and mine supply company workers.

West Virginia is the second largest coal-producing state in the country behind Wyoming and accounts for about 15 percent of all coal production in the United States. The Mountain State leads the nation in underground coal production and leads the nation in coal exports with over 50 million tons shipped to 23 countries. West Virginia accounts for about half of U.S. coal exports.

In addition, the coal industry pays about $70 million in property taxes in the state annually, and the Coal Severance Tax adds about $214 million into West Virginia's economy. The coal industry payroll in the state is nearly $2 billion per year, and coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion annually in the gross state product.

"The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster," Obama said in the San Francisco Chronicle interview. "What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama's comments "unbelievable."

"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally."

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

"In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said 'not here' about building coal-fired power plants -- this is exactly what will happen," Hamilton said. "Financing won't be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

"If we're going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here."

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's state director said Obama's statements are troubling, especially for West Virginians.

"I think this clearly shows the attitude the Obama-Biden ticket has toward coal," Ben Beakes said Sunday. "Rhetoric is cheap, but behind closed doors what they tell their supporters - that's what we have to take as gospel.

"They're definitely not friends of coal."

Beakes noted other examples of Obama and Biden making seemingly anti-coal statements, such as in February when Obama said he'd like to tax "dirty energy" such as coal and natural gas.

"And their cohorts in Congress make similar statements," Beakes said. "(Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said this summer that 'coal makes us sick.'

"This is an attitude and view that, to me, shows their hatred of coal. And therefore, their view would cost West Virginians thousands upon thousands of jobs."

Beakes touted McCain's view toward coal.

"John McCain has embraced coal," Beakes said. "He doesn't agree with everything in the coal industry, but his view of coal is positive. He will make it part of his energy policy. He's met with leaders in the coal industry and let them know that. He's sought advice from coal industry leaders.

"McCain understands that coal supports about 49 percent of our electricity in this country. He'll continue to make coal important. He wants to reduce our foreign dependency on oil."

Hamilton also said the Obama campaign needs to find varied sources for coal and energy advice.

"If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm

Little Green Lies

By Ben Elgin

The sweet notion that making a company environmentally friendly can be not just cost-effective but profitable is going up in smoke. Meet the man wielding the torch.

Auden Schendler learned about corporate environmentalism directly from the prophet of the movement. In the late 1990s, Schendler was working as a junior researcher at the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank in Aspen led by Amory Lovins, legendary author of the idea that by "going green," companies can increase profits while saving the planet. As Lovins often told Schendler and others at the institute, boosting energy efficiency and reducing harmful emissions constitute not just a free lunch but "a lunch you're paid to eat."

Inspired by this marvelous promise, Schendler took a job in 1999 at Aspen Skiing Co., becoming one of the first of a new breed: the in-house "corporate sustainability" advocate. Eight years later, it takes him six hours crisscrossing the Aspen region by car and foot to show a visitor some of the ways he has helped the posh, 800-employee resort blunt its contribution to global warming. Schendler, 37, a tanned and muscular mountain climber, clambers atop a storage shed to point out sleek solar panels on an employee-housing rooftop. He hikes down a stony slope for a view of the resort's miniature power plant, fueled by the rushing waters of a mountain creek. The company features its environmental credentials in its marketing and has decorated its headquarters with green trophies and plaques. Last year Time honored Schendler as a "Climate Crusader" in an article accompanied by a half-page photo of the jut-jawed executive standing amid snow-covered evergreens.

But at the end of this arid late-summer afternoon, Schendler is feeling anything but triumphant. He pulls a company sedan to the side of a dirt road and turns off the motor. "Who are we kidding?" he says, finally. Despite all his exertions, the resort's greenhouse-gas emissions continue to creep up year after year. More vacationers mean larger lodgings burning more power. Warmer winters require tons of additional artificial snow, another energy drain. "I've succeeded in doing a lot of sexy projects yet utterly failed in what I set out to do," Schendler says. "How do you really green your company? It's almost f------ impossible."

Barely a day goes by without a prominent corporation loudly announcing its latest green accomplishments: retailers retrofitting stores to cut energy consumption, utilities developing pristine wind power, major banks investing billions in clean energy. No matter what Al Gore's critics might say, there's no denying that the Nobel Prize winner's message has hit home. With rising consumer anxiety over global warming, businesses want to show that they're part of the solution, says Chris Hunter, a former energy manager at Johnson & Johnson (JNJ ) who works for the environmental consulting firm GreenOrder. "Ten years ago, companies would call up and say I need a digital strategy.' Now, it's I need a green strategy.'"

Environmental stewardship has become a centerpiece of corporate image-crafting. General Electric (GE ) says it is spending nearly all of its multimillion-dollar corporate advertising budget on "Ecomagination," its collection of environmentally friendly products, even though they make up only 8% of the conglomerate's sales. Yahoo! (YHOO ) and Google (GOOG ) have proclaimed that by 2008 their offices and computer centers will become "carbon neutral." Fueling the public relations frenzy is the notion that preserving the climate is better than cost-effective. But Schendler, who only a few years ago considered himself a leading proponent of this theory, now offers a searing refutation of the belief that green corporate practices beget green of the pecuniary variety.

EMPTY BOASTING

Charismatic and well-connected among environmental executives, he has begun saying out loud what some whisper in private: Companies continue to assess most green initiatives with the same return-on-investment analysis they would use with any other capital project. And while some environmental advances pay for themselves in time, returns often aren't as swift or large as competing uses of corporate cash. That leads to green projects quietly withering on the vine. More important, and contrary to the alluring Lovins thesis, many major initiatives simply aren't money-savers. They come with daunting price tags that undercut the conviction that environmental salvation can be had on the cheap.

Schendler explains his confessional mood as the result of cumulative frustration: with foot-dragging colleagues, with himself for compromising, and with the entire green movement frothily sweeping through corporations in America and Europe. So far his candor hasn't cost him his job, though rival resorts have groused about Schendler to his bosses. His colleagues tolerate him with a combination of personal affection and periodic annoyance. "We have a very self-critical culture," says Mike Kaplan, Aspen Skiing's chief executive. "We wouldn't have Auden any other way." The company, Kaplan adds, has led its industry on the environmental front.

Schendler grits his teeth over the failure of modest proposals, such as his plan last year to refurbish one of the resort's oldest lodges to use less energy. He estimated the $100,000 project would have paid for itself in seven years through lower utility bills. But the money went for new ski lifts, snowmobiles, and other conventional purchases. "The availability of capital is not infinite," says Donald Schuster, vice-president for real estate.

Beaten back frequently, the environmental executive concedes that he made a mistake last year when he pushed the resort to make audacious green claims based on the purchase of "renewable energy credits." RECs are a type of financial arrangement that companies increasingly use to justify assertions that they have reduced their net contribution to global warming. But the most commonly used RECs, which are supposed to result in a third party's developing pollution-free power, turn out to be highly dubious (BW—Mar. 26). Aspen Skiing relied on RECs in declaring it had "offset 100% of our electricity use." Schendler now concedes the boast was empty.

Aspen Skiing is far from alone in making suspect claims of green virtue. Setting aside questionable renewable energy credits would wipe out the climate-saving assertions of dozens of major corporations celebrated for their environmental leadership. Office products retailer Staples (SPLS ) has used RECs to turn a 19% spike in emissions since 2001 into what it claims to be a 15% decline, the company's sustainability reports show. PepsiCo (PEP ) and Whole Foods Market have employed the credits to make declarations that every bit of pollution from electricity they use is negated. Johnson & Johnson has proclaimed a 17% reduction in carbon emissions since 1990, based largely on RECs. Without the credits, the pharmaceutical giant has seen a 24% increase, J&J executives acknowledge. "Recent corporate moves by J&J and others are pushing in the right direction, but it is still window dressing compared to the problem at hand," says Hunter, the former J&J manager.

Amid the overheated claims, some corporations have made legitimate environmental gains. Wal-Mart Stores (WMT ) helped spark the market for energy-saving fluorescent bulbs by giving them top billing, even though incandescent bulbs are more profitable. Office Depot overhauled lighting and energy in more than 600 stores, contributing to the company's real 10% decline in releases of heat-trapping gases. Dow Chemical (DOW ) and DuPont (DD ) have significantly trimmed their actual emission levels. But there is still reason to worry about long-term commitment. Dow says it invested $1 billion to help achieve reductions of 19% between 1994 and 2005. Because of technological challenges and costs, however, Dow predicts that additional cuts won't occur until 2025, 18 years from now.

Much corporate environmentalism boils down to misleading statistics and hype. To make real progress, genuine accomplishments will have to be sorted out from feel-good gestures. Schendler no longer views business as capable of the dramatic change he thought possible eight years ago, the sort of change that corporations have grown accustomed to boasting about. His own employer is "a perfect example of why this won't work," he says. "We've had a chance to cherry-pick 50 projects and get them done. But even if every ski company could do what we did, we'd still be nowhere."

`TRENCH WARFARE'

Auden Schendler felt nature's pull at the age of 14, when his uncle took him on a backpacking trip through the rugged Bob Marshall Wilderness in northwest Montana. Growing up in the scruffy New Jersey city of Hackensack, he always felt cramped and out of place. He escaped up the Atlantic coast to Maine, where he majored in environmental studies at Bowdoin College. "I became the person I wanted to be: a mountaineer, an outdoorsman." During this period he scaled Alaska's 20,300-foot Mount McKinley and made several trips up treacherous Mount Rainier in central Washington. On another adventure, he trekked alone on skis for nine days across a wintry Yosemite, sleeping in hand-carved snow caves. "I am at my happiest on a fall morning, in a high-mountain campsite, maybe 12,000 feet," he says. "The air is crisp and chilly, and some coffee is brewing on the campfire. What is better than that?"

After college he moved to Aspen and taught skiing and high school math. The state of Colorado provided his first paid environmental job, weatherizing the trailers of poor families to help them save energy. This involved crawling beneath flimsy homes, where he sometimes encountered the decomposing carcasses of raccoons. "It was gritty work," he says, "the trench warfare of climate change."

In 1997, he took a job at the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) just outside Aspen, which Lovins had co-founded 15 years earlier. Lovins, a physicist by training, was collaborating with his then-wife, L. Hunter Lovins, and businessman Paul Hawken on a book called Natural Capitalism, which became a best-seller. By rethinking their operations and choosing materials wisely, the book argued, companies could produce far less pollution and earn more. "Auden is terrific," Lovins recalls of his "vigorous, smart, and dedicated" former employee, who did research for Natural Capitalism. An obsession with efficiency pervaded the institute: Schendler recalls being chastised for boiling water in the kitchen without a lid on the kettle. He idolized Lovins and went jogging with Hawken. "Instead of going to graduate school, I went to RMI," he says.

He heard in 1999 that Aspen Skiing, a complex of hotels and ski runs popular with wealthy vacationers, was looking for an environmental director. The job seemed a perfect fit. "When I left RMI, I felt that government was powerful but businesses were nimble enough and motivated enough by profit to make changes that we need," he says. "I was indoctrinated." The ski industry, which gorges on energy to create a fantasy of always-plentiful powdered snow and cozy alpine hideaways, offered an ideal place to put these abstractions into practice.

RESISTANCE FROM WITHIN

Aspen Skiing, privately owned by the Crown family of Chicago, which made billions on its stake in military contractor General Dynamics (GD ) and other enterprises, exudes an earnest concern about nature—not least because its business would melt away if temperatures rose just a few degrees. "My kids say: God, Dad, are we going to ski when we're your age?'" says Kaplan, the CEO. "I have to tell them: I don't know.'"

Then 29, Schendler received a genial welcome at Aspen Skiing's wood-paneled headquarters near the county airport. "Auden came with some great athletic credentials," recalls John Norton, then the chief operating officer. "He's a terrific kayaker and skier, and that's a guaranteed ice-breaker in a ski company." But when it came to spending the company's money, things became complicated.

He first took aim at the 90-room Little Nell Hotel. The luxurious lodge nestled at the base of Aspen Mountain devours so much electricity that Schendler assumed it would be simple to find efficiencies. He told its then-manager, Eric Calderon, he wanted to put fluorescent lightbulbs in all guest rooms. The new bulbs would last 10 times as long, use 75% less power, and pay for themselves in only two years. The answer was no. Calderon, who favors dapper blue blazers and chinos, worried that fluorescent light would suggest a waiting-room ambience, jeopardizing the establishment's five-star rating. "There's always a question of balance between environmental concerns and satisfying expectations of the clientele," he says.

Thwarted on guest rooms, Schendler switched to Little Nell's underground garage. Guests never saw it because valets park all cars. For $20,000, Schendler said he could replace energy-gobbling 175-watt incandescent light fixtures with fluorescent bulbs and save $10,000 a year. Unimpressed, Calderon again balked. If he had $20,000 extra, he would rather spend it on items guests would notice: fine Corinthian leather furniture or shiny new bathroom fixtures.

At the company's next senior management meeting, Schendler brought an unusual display to make his case for new garage lights. He had wired a stationary bicycle to show how much less energy fluorescent bulbs consume. Thirty managers watched as Schendler challenged a burly executive to hop on the bike. Sure enough, it took much more sweat to make several incandescent bulbs glow. But Schuster, the real estate chief, didn't believe the new lights would save money. "I was skeptical on the ROI [return on investment] calculations Auden had presented for the retrofit," Schuster recalls. "One of my concerns was that we were committing capital based on theoretical returns without any real opportunity for a look back on the actual returns."

It took Schendler two years to overcome resistance to the garage-light replacement, and then only after he secured a $5,000 grant from a local nonprofit. He acknowledges the strangeness of a corporation with annual revenue of about $200 million, according to industry veterans (the company declines to provide a figure), seeking charity to reduce its electricity use. With a hint of sarcasm, he notes: "This is the sort of radical action that's needed to get people over ROI thresholds."

WHEN BREAK-EVEN WON'T DO

Larger-scale versions of his lightbulb struggle are playing out at numerous other companies. Hailed as an environmental pioneer, FedEx (FDX ) says on its Web site that it is "committed to the use of innovations and technologies to minimize greenhouse gases." With 70,000 ground vehicles and 670 planes burning fuel, the world's largest shipper is a huge producer of heat-trapping gases. Back in 2003, FedEx announced that it would soon begin deploying clean-burning hybrid trucks at a rate of 3,000 a year, eventually sparing the atmosphere 250,000 tons of greenhouse gases annually from diesel-engine vehicles. "This program has the potential to replace the company's 30,000 medium-duty trucks over the next 10 years," FedEx announced at the time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded the effort a Clean Air Excellence prize in 2004.

Four years later, FedEx has purchased fewer than 100 hybrid trucks, or less than one-third of one percent of its fleet. At $70,000 and up, the hybrids cost at least 75% more than conventional trucks, although fuel savings should pay for the difference over the 10-year lifespan of the vehicles. FedEx, which reported record profits of $2 billion for the fiscal year that ended May 31, decided that breaking even over a decade wasn't the best use of company capital. "We do have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders," says environmental director Mitch Jackson. "We can't subsidize the development of this technology for our competitors."

Schendler faces the return-on-investment challenge on almost every proposal he makes. Earlier this year, he pushed his employer to bankroll a $1 million solar-energy farm on the outskirts of Aspen. Like most electricity consumers in the Rockies, Aspen Skiing's power comes primarily from coal-fired plants, which emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. With federal tax breaks aimed at encouraging clean energy, the football-field-size solar array might generate a paltry 6.5% return, meaning it would pay for itself in 15 years. It barely got approved, says Chief Financial Officer Matt Jones. "We put this together with duct tape and chewing gum."

Schendler's persistence eventually won him admirers even among executives who didn't agree with his entire agenda. "We were trying to run a very complex set of businesses—four ski areas, three hotels, two athletic complexes, and a golf course—but Auden never let us forget that he belonged in the family portrait," says Norton, the former COO and the man Schendler recruited for the bike-powered lightbulb demonstration. "Usually he elbowed in with good humor, but also sometimes with the grim single-mindedness that's the mantle of a true believer."

`I WAS GETTING KILLED'

Schendler, who is married and has two young children, ranks below top managers at Aspen Skiing but attends most of their important meetings. The company zealously guards salary amounts, and he won't reveal his, but a person familiar with Aspen Skiing estimates that he earns about $100,000 a year. Perpetually on the move, Schendler gets his hands into everything, fiddling with a boiler knob and inquiring why a building's lights were on the previous night. He sometimes seems self-conscious about his East Coast, elite-college pedigree, compensating with gestures like helping rewire a lodge's electrical circuits. Teasing follows him everywhere, he says. "I can't tell you how many times I've heard, Hey, Auden, I recycled a can today.'"

One of his proudest victories is the small hydro-power plant the company spent $150,000 in 2003 to install on one of its ski slopes. It's fed two months of the year by a stream that turns into a roaring creek when the snow melts. The other 10 months it's dormant. Inside the small hut containing the plant's steel turbine, he animatedly describes the hurdles overcome during construction: "We hit an underground gas line. I was over budget. I was getting killed." But it got done.

For all his hard work, however, Schendler began to feel a creeping disappointment. Combined, the hydro and solar projects eventually will generate less than 1% of the company's power needs. His colleagues felt they were stretching to accommodate him, but Schendler knew he was coming up short. Seeking to make an industry-leading gesture, he decided in 2005 to explore renewable energy credits. [REC's]

Introduced at the beginning of the decade, RECs are supposed to marshal market forces behind wind and solar power. Developers of clean energy sell RECs, usually measured in megawatt hours of electricity, to buyers that want to counterbalance their pollution by funding environmentally friendly power. But often the REC trade seems like little more than the buying and selling of bragging rights, rather than incentives that lead to the construction of wind turbines or solar panels.

Schendler knew that RECs and similar financial transactions were swiftly growing in popularity, as more companies sought green credibility and REC brokers proliferated. He persuaded his superiors in 2006 to spend $42,000 a year, a 2% premium on the company's energy costs, to buy RECs at roughly $2 a megawatt hour. According to commonly accepted REC principles, this investment, less than a third of what it took to build the hydro plant, permitted Aspen Skiing to claim that it had offset all of its use of coal-burning energy.

Colleagues heaped praise on Schendler. In a press release, Pat O'Donnell, then the company's CEO, said: "This purchase represents our guiding principles in action." Accolades arrived from the EPA; local newspapers reported the feat. "It was seen as one of my biggest wins ever," Schendler says.

He spent hours thinking about how to describe the purchase of RECs for marketing purposes. The formulation he came up with was that Aspen Skiing had offset "100% of our electricity use with wind energy credits, keeping a million pounds of pollution out of the air." This wording was plastered on ski lifts, advertising brochures, and countless company e-mails.

But even as he helped launch this campaign, Schendler had a queasy feeling. At some level, he suspected the credits weren't causing any new windmills to be built. They weren't literally offsetting anything. He felt torn. "I'm well aware of what is right and what works and what matters," he says. "I'm also aware of brand positioning. Part of my job is to maintain [Aspen Skiing's] leadership." His industry "was going to do this in a big way. One small resort in California already had, and we needed to move. My solace was the educational value of the move. The discussions it would cause would be valuable, even if the RECs were not."

His prediction proved accurate. In the year and a half since his RECs purchase, more than 50 other ski resorts have made similar buys. No fewer than 28 claim to be "100% wind powered." Enticed by inexpensive green claims, companies in other industries have been equally enthusiastic. The top 25 REC purchasers have bought the equivalent of 6 million megawatt hours this year, nearly quadruple the volume from 2005, the EPA says.

Rather than enjoying his role as an REC pioneer, Schendler felt increasingly anxious. In private, he pushed REC brokers for hard evidence that new wind capacity was being built. Their evasiveness gnawed at him. He asked veterans in the renewable energy field whether his marketing message was legitimate. "They laughed at me," he says.

The trouble stems from the basic economics of RECs. Credits purchased at $2 a megawatt hour, the price Aspen Skiing and many other corporations pay, logically can't have much effect. Wind developers receive about $51 per megawatt hour for the electricity they sell to utilities. They get another $20 in federal tax breaks, and the equivalent of up to $20 more in accelerated depreciation of their capital equipment. Even many wind-power developers that stand to profit from RECs concede that producers making $91 a megawatt hour aren't going to expand production for another $2. "At this price, they're not very meaningful for the developer," says John Calaway, chief development officer for U.S. wind power at Babcock & Brown, an investment bank that funds new wind projects. "It doesn't support building something that wouldn't otherwise be built."

BAFFLEMENT AND IRRITATION

Schendler isn't the only environmental executive aware of the problem. In 2006, Johnson & Johnson spent $1 million on credits it says are equivalent to 400,000 tons of emissions. Based on this purchase, the company claimed to have shrunk its contribution to global warming by 17% since 1990. The World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups have praised J&J, and the EPA gave the company a Green Power award in 2006. Asked about the doubts surrounding RECs, Dennis Canavan, the company's senior director of global energy, concedes that the credits "aren't ideal." They don't really reduce J&J's pollution, he says, and he hopes the company eventually abandons them. Still, he insists that "somewhere along the line, RECs do encourage new projects." He adds: "For the time being, this is the system available to us to offset CO2."

However, some companies employ more direct methods, like building substantial clean energy capacity themselves. In August, Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, Mass., turned on a new wind turbine standing 386 feet tall and capable of providing half of the resort's electricity. The project took three years to complete and cost $4 million.

Many larger corporations, however, defend their lower-cost approach. Mark Buckley, vice-president of environmental affairs at Staples, defends RECs, saying they "have clearly sent the right signal to the market." His counterpart at PepsiCo (PEP ), Rob Schasel, agrees, adding, "Absolutely, we're changing what's going into the atmosphere." Whole Foods Market (WFMI ) declined to comment.

This spring Schendler concluded that he had to reverse course, persuade his employer to back away from the renewable energy credits he had endorsed just months earlier, and favor more meaningful green projects. His colleagues reacted with bafflement and irritation. "Auden, you are the most confusing human being I have ever encountered," senior marketing manager Steve Metcalf wrote in an e-mail in April. "You have placed on us the responsibility of getting the environment message out—your message—as a company-wide endeavor. We have responded to your bidding and environmental passion with a gusto on the verge of maniacal. As mentioned, you are confusing to the point of complete exhaustion."

Schendler replied: "Relax, brah. I enormously appreciate all the support.... We're on the edge of this thing, figuring it out. If it were simple and easy, someone would have done it already."

THE CONFLICTED CRITIC

The company will continue to buy RECs through at least 2008, when its current contract expires. Executives say they're reluctant to stop any sooner, because they don't want to appear to be backsliding on the environment when competitors claim to be entirely wind powered. The company still touts its RECs purchases in some marketing material.

Schendler, meanwhile, has become a prominent critic of RECs, a potentially confusing role, since his employer buys them. In an April letter to the Center for Resource Solutions, a nonprofit group in San Francisco that certifies credits, he said that RECs have as much effect on the development of new renewable-energy projects as would trading "rocks, IOUs, or pinecones." That statement, which inevitably whizzed around the Internet, stung some in the ski industry who interpreted it as an attack. Schendler's immediate boss, General Counsel Dave Bellack, has heard from competitors asking that he stifle Schendler. Bellack has declined.

Now simultaneously an insider and an outsider in corporate environmental circles, Schendler relishes the notoriety. "I don't think I'm seen as a team player in this industry," he says, "but I don't care. This issue is so much bigger than just the ski industry." In March he told the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources that companies won't make serious progress without regulation of carbon emissions—a departure from his earlier faith that abundant, profitable green projects will transform the way business operate.

His former mentor Lovins says Schendler could find further cost-saving energy efficiencies with more support from his superiors. But this mind-set, Schendler warns, could influence companies to pursue exclusively projects with quick payoffs: "The idea that green is fun, it's easy, and it's profitable is dangerous. This is hard work. It's messy. It's not always profitable. And companies have to get off the mark and start actually doing stuff."

Obama & Gore Make Carbon Regulations/Taxes a Key Partisan Issue In Uncertain Economic Times-Shouldn't Dems Suffer Same Fate as Canada's Liberal Party?

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:16:00 +0000

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2RHIj_6hvV0&refer=home

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant

By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Bloomberg.com

Oct. 16, 2008

Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview. President George W. Bush declined to curb CO2 emissions under the law even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the government may do so.

If elected, Obama would be the first president to group emissions blamed for global warming into a category of pollutants that includes lead and carbon monoxide. Obama's rival in the presidential race, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has not said how he would treat CO2 under the act.

Obama ``would initiate those rulemakings,'' Grumet said in an Oct. 6 interview in Boston. ``He's not going to insert political judgments to interrupt the recommendations of the scientific efforts.''

Placing heat-trapping pollutants in the same category as ozone may lead to caps on power-plant emissions and force utilities to use the most expensive systems to curb pollution. The move may halt construction plans on as many as half of the 130 proposed new U.S. coal plants.

The president may take action on new rules immediately upon taking office, said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. Environment groups including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council will issue a regulatory agenda for the next president that calls for limits on CO2 from industry.

`Hit Ground Running'

``This is what they should do to hit the ground running,'' Bookbinder said in an Oct. 10 telephone interview.

Separately, Congress is debating legislation to create an emissions market to address global warming, a solution endorsed by both candidates and utilities such as American Electric Power Co., the biggest U.S. producer of electricity from coal. Congress failed to pass a global-warming bill in June and how long it may take lawmakers to agree on a plan isn't known.

``We need federal legislation to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions,'' said Vicki Arroyo, general counsel for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. ``In the meantime, there is this vacuum. People are eager to get started on this.''

An Obama victory would help clear the deadlock in talks on an international agreement to slow global warming, Rajendra Pachauri, head of a United Nation panel of climate-change scientists, said today in Berlin. Negotiators from almost 200 countries will meet in December in Poznan, Poland, to discuss ways to limit CO2.

`Back in the Game'

``The U.S. has to move quickly domestically so we can get back in the game internationally,'' Grumet said. ``We cannot have a meaningful impact in the international discussion until we develop a meaningful domestic consensus. So he'll move quickly.''

Burning coal to generate electricity produces more than a third of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions and half the U.S. power supply, according to the Energy Department. Every hour, fossil-fuel combustion generates 3.5 million tons of emissions worldwide, helping create a warming effect that ``already threatens our climate,'' the Paris-based International Energy Agency said.

The EPA under Bush fought the notion that the Clean Air Act applies to CO2 all the way to the Supreme Court. The law has been used successfully to regulate six pollutants, including sulfur dioxide and ozone. Regulation under the act ``could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority,'' EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said in July. The law ``is the wrong tool for the job.''

Proponents of regulation are hoping for better results under a new president. Obama adviser Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, said if Congress hasn't acted in 18 months, about the time it would take to draft rules, the president should.

EPA Authority

``The EPA is obligated to move forward in the absence of Congressional action,'' Grumet said.

``If there's no action by Congress in those 18 months, I think any responsible president would want to have the regulatory approach.''

States where coal-fired plants may be affected include Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

The alternative, a national cap-and-trade program created by Congress, offers industry more options, said Bruce Braine, a vice president at Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric. The world's largest cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases opened in Europe in 2005.

Under a cap-and-trade program, polluters may keep less- efficient plants running if they offset those emissions with investments in projects that lower pollution, such as wind-energy turbines or systems that destroy methane gas from landfills.

McCain `Not a Fan'

``Those options may still allow me to build new efficient power plants that might not meet a higher standard,'' Braine said in an Oct. 9 interview. ``That might be a more cost-effective way to approach it.''

McCain hasn't said how he would approach CO2 regulation under the Clean Air Act. McCain adviser and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey said Oct. 6 that new rules may conflict with Congressional efforts. Policy adviser Rebecca Jensen Tallent said in August that McCain prefers a bill debated by Congress rather than regulations ``established through one agency where one secretary is getting to make a lot of decisions.''

``He is not as big of a fan of standards-based approaches,'' Arroyo said. ``The Supreme Court thinks it's clear that there is greenhouse-gas authority under the Clean Air Act. To take that off the table probably wouldn't be very wise.''

More Efficient Technologies

How new regulations would affect the proposed U.S. coal plants depends on how they are written, said Bill Fang, climate issue director for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington-based lobbying group for utilities. About half of the proposed plants plan to use technologies that are 20 percent more efficient than conventional coal burners.

``Several states have denied the applicability of the Clean Air Act to coal permits,'' Fang said in an Oct. 10 interview.

In June, a court in Georgia stopped construction of the 1,200- megawatt Longleaf power plant, a $2 billion project, because developer Dynegy Inc. failed to consider cleaner technology.

An appeals board within the EPA is considering a challenge from the Sierra Club to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative's air permit for its 110-megawatt Bonanza coal plant in Utah on grounds that it failed to require controls on CO2. One megawatt is enough to power about 800 typical U.S. homes.

``Industry has woken up to the fact that a new progressive administration could move quickly to make the United States a leader rather than a laggard,'' said Bruce Nilles, director of the group's national coal campaign.

[PERHAPS, OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMIST GROUPS WILL WAKE UP ON NOVEMBER 5TH TO FIND OUT THAT THEY, LIKE THE CANADIAN LIBERAL & ENVIRONMENTAL PARTIES, ARE NOT IN OFFICE!! IMPOSING STRICT ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND TAXES ON SMALL, MEDIUM-SIZED AND LARGE BUSINESSES & INDIVIDUALS IN UNCERTAIN ECONOMIC TIMES IS NOT ONLY FOOLISH POLITICS, BUT ALSO CRUEL AND INSENSITIVE TREATMENT IN DISREGARD OF INDIVIDUAL (MOSTLY, PRIVATE PROPERTY) RIGHTS.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AS THE FOLLOWING MEDIA ARTICLE REVEALS, THE ECONOMIC PAIN OF IMPOSING CARBON CAPS VIA REGULATION AND CARBON TAXES DOES NOT EVEN REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS, AS GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF NORWAY HAVE DISCOVERED THE HARD WAY. IN OTHER WORDS, DESPITE THE ECONOMIC PAIN, THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE, IF ANY, ENVIRONMENTAL GAIN.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/09/30/emissions-impossible-norway-taxes-carbon-emissions-rise/

Emissions Impossible: Norway Taxes Carbon, Emissions Rise

Posted by Keith Johnson

Environmental Capital - Wall Street Journal

September 30, 2008, 11:20 am

The big debate over how to tackle climate change generally boils down to what kind of pain a climate plan will do to the economy; environmental benefits are generally assumed.

But what if the economic pain doesn’t even translate into environmental gain? That’s what happened in Norway, a pioneer in putting a pricetag on carbon emissions almost twenty years ago. Net result? Carbon emissions have increased 15% since then. Leila Abboud writes today in the WSJ:

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. By making it more expensive to pollute, carbon taxes should spur companies and individuals to clean up. Norway’s sobering experience shows how difficult it is to cut emissions in the real world, where elegant theoretical solutions are complicated by economic changes, entrenched behaviors and political realities.

For economic changes, read “growth.” Norway’s growth in emissions has been a lot less than its economic growth over the same period, so the economy is clearly getting cleaner. But not enough to offset the simple math of more economic activity spewing more emissions into the atmosphere. Norway’s oil industry became one of the world’s cleanest since it started paying to pollute; but it’s grown so much in the meantime, oil and gas emissions have quadrupled, the WSJ notes.

People also learn to roll with punches. While $4 gasoline has changed some driving habits in the U.S., $10 gasoline hasn’t in Norway—car sales surged in the last decade and people still choose expensive commutes. Does that mean expectations that pricey gasoline will end America’s car addiction are overblown?

Then there’s politics. Norway isn’t alone in giving some economic sectors, like fishing, preferential treatment. China and India don’t even want to talk about emissions curbs. Germany and Poland are rapidly backpedaling on environmental commitments to save key industries at a time of economic strife. Australia has tied itself in knots trying to figure out how to clean up a coal-fired export economy without killing it.

Which brings us back to one of the bigger questions. If Norway can’t slash emissions almost two decades after slapping a hefty pricetag on carbon, what does that say about the belief that “making polluters pay” will automatically transform America’s economy?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[APPARENTLY, OBAMA AND HIS ADVISORS ARE TOO ARROGANT TO HAVE LEARNED FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF EUROPE OR THE MISTAKE OF CANADA'S LIBERAL PARTY. THEREFORE, AMERICANS SHOULD LET THEM KNOW THAT AMERICA DOES NOT WANT ECONOMICALLY PAINFUL CARBON REGULATIONS & TAXES THAT HAVE PROVEN INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE PROMISED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, ESPECIALLY DURING UNCERTAIN ECONOMIC TIMES].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://progressivesforgore.blogspot.com/

Environmentalists for Al Gore

Progressives for Gore Blog

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

This is why I hope Al Gore does not speak at the DNC convention...

[See: Al Gore WE Campaign Advertisement "To Our Leaders: Give Us 100% Clean Electricity in 10 Years": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydOPBL5iO2Y ; See also: ABC deems Gore climate change advert too 'controversial' for TV, By Elana Schor in Washingtonguardian.co.uk, Friday October 10 2008 18.29 BST at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/10/algore-television . ("The ABC network has refused to air an advert produced by Al Gore's environmental group, ruling that its charge of US government favouritism to the oil industry is too "controversial" for television. The TV commercial, part of the WE campaign run by Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection"). See: http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/about ].

...Now onto the more important reason why...I hope he doesn't speak at the DNC convention. I understand that Mr. Gore is a loyal Democrat and I respect that even though I have personally had it with them. However, I also understand that he sees the big picture as well, which is why I love and respect him so much... That the climate crisis is not nor should it ever be debased to being a partisan political issue because that will be its death knell.

And I do believe that in order for him to maintain his credibility on this issue that he should not speak at either convention, or speak at both of them to relay the true urgency of what this world now faces in the clutches of climate change. Speaking at only one will give the impression that he sees the solutions as only being one sided after stating it should not be partisan, and that is not good for progress.

And I don't believe he believes that, because this video which is the next one put out by the WE Campaign will air during both conventions... that's right, you read it right political partisans, both conventions.

Do you see it now?

Do you not see that the glacier melt occurring three times faster than anticipated is far more important than you having something else to speculate about? Do you not see the pervasive and severe droughts covering over half the world and causing famine, diseases, and lack of water as more important than your condemnations of him for not "doing anything" to be involved in this political campaign season when this is it and it is now you who must be involved in the campaign to save the sustainability of this planet and our species?

[DEAR JAN, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE OF THE NORTH POLE ICE CAP GROWING IN SIZE?? IS THAT MERELY PEOPLES' IMAGINATION AT WORK???? See: Michael Asher, Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage, Daily Tech Science Blog (Sept. 3, 2008), at: http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm ].

Do you not see that Mr. Gore's challenge to this country to be powered by 100% renewable energy in 10 years is bigger than your petty fantasies?

Therefore, Mr. Gore, if by some chance you or someone who knows you happens to read this, here is my advice... don't speak at the DNC convention. Let this ad speak for you to tell those in the Democratic and Republican parties who still shun their moral obligation to this planet and the people that they will not be allowed to continue the status quo, nor will their candidates who are both now bowing to the whims of polls.

By not speaking at either convention you actually speak loud and clear for Mother Earth and for something far more important than the sideshow of a convention: You speak for all those who can't speak for themselves because of the lack of political will that has led us to this point.

However, if you do decide to do so, consider the use of a hologram as you did at Live Earth or a video link up perhaps. The last thing I want to read in the news again are the same whiners complaining over your carbon emissions to distract from their own culpability in this.

Update: Al Gore To Speak On Convention Final Night

Oh well, looks like Mr. Gore is going to speak on the final night according to this report. Sure makes the climate crisis look like a partisan politcal issue now, but perhaps he is actually going to chide those on all sides who have been so remiss in their action. I'll wait to watch it on the Internet.

posted by Jan at

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Perhaps Messrs. Obama and Gore should pay attention to the recent election results in Canada, which resulted in the Liberal Progressive Canadian Labor Party losing approximately 20 seats in the Canadian Parliament, while the Canadian Green Party Candidate failed to secure that Party's first ever organic seat in the Canadian Parliament. As a result, the Canadian Conservative Party gained approximately 20 seats (a 'strong minority position' (but failed to achieve the threshold number of seats necessary for a majority).

Two major themes seem to have been reflected in the Canadian citizens' voting:

1) An antipathy/hostility toward 'BIG' government spending, including that on national health care, 'during a time of global economic uncertainty'; AND

2) An antipathy/hostility toward the Liberal & Green Parties' push for the 'Green Shift' - a/k/a 'carbon tax to save the world', 'during a time of global economic uncertainty'.]

[READERS SHOULD NOTE THAT THE OFFICIAL COLORS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES IN CANADA ARE EXACTLY OPPOSITE OF THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES. WHEREAS THE OFFICIAL COLOR OF THE U.S. REPUBLICAN PARTY USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH CONSERVATIVE POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES IS 'RED', THE OFFICIAL COLOR OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN CANADA IS 'BLUE'. SIMILARLY, WHEREAS THE OFFICIAL COLOR OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES IS 'BLUE', THE OFFICIAL COLOR OF THE LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE PARTY IN CANADA IS 'RED'.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AMAZINGLY, NOT EVEN FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON LEARNED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE, AS HE RECENTLY PRAISED THE EFFORTS OF THE 'EMBATTLED' PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA TO IMPOSE ON A NONCONSENTING BRITISH COLUMBIAN ELECTORATE AN EXPENSIVE PROVINCE-WIDE CARBON TAX!]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081018.BCCLINTON18/TPStory/Environment

Clinton praises B.C. carbon tax as great economic generator

By DAVID EBNER

Globe and Mail.ca

October 18, 2008

VANCOUVER -- Gordon Campbell, the embattled Premier of British Columbia, received some big-name support yesterday afternoon for his controversial carbon tax: Bill Clinton, former president of the United States.

Mr. Clinton called Mr. Campbell's efforts to combat climate change "the greatest economic generator you could embrace."

"I know he's taken some heat," Mr. Clinton said of Mr. Campbell's critics.

Mr. Campbell's Liberal government on July 1 brought in a carbon tax on fossil fuels, starting at a couple of pennies per litre for gasoline, and rising each year. The tax applies to individuals and businesses, big and small.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/10/17/7114391-sun.html

Liberals [ON BOTH SIDES OF THE U.S.-CANADIAN BORDER] don't get it: Simply Changing the Leader Can’t Fix All that Ails This Party

By MICHAEL DEN TANDT

Edmonton Sun

Oct. 17, 2008

The polls had barely closed when the usual coterie of unnamed Liberal "strategists" began baying for Stephane Dion's blood. They were soon joined by a ragtag collection of anonymous Liberal MPs, all eager to satisfy our, that is the media's, insatiable appetite for a lynching.

Earth to Liberals: Your problems are much bigger than Dion.

For starters, politics is at its root about right and wrong. Yet here you have a party for which notions of loyalty, decency, common courtesy, seem to have no meaning at all.

It's obvious that Dion threw everything he had into the campaign. It's also obvious that he is a sincere man who genuinely loves Canada. Surely that should have earned him, oh, three days' grace before the mob dragged him out onto the lawn to be put down?

Dion failed to connect with Canadians, it's true. But in important ways this election outcome was not fundamentally about him. It was a repudiation of conventional Liberal thinking. If the party doesn't address this, its days in power are over.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not win 143 seats in the House of Commons, up from 127 in the last Parliament, by force of his winning personality and dazzling smile. If anything, Harper was a drag on his party in this campaign. He made serious mistakes, especially in Quebec but not only there, that crystallized negative sentiment about his personality and style. His marketing team's attempt to repackage him as a kind, blue-sweatered hockey dad was nothing short of brilliant. Harper failed to live up to his marketing.

TORY GAINS

Despite that, Conservatives made significant gains across the country. Though largely shut out of the major cities, their popular vote was strong there too -- stronger than anyone, probably themselves included, had expected. Harper looked genuinely happy Tuesday night as he delivered his victory speech. He had ample reason. Not only had he won, but he had done so convincingly, in spite of having made serious strategic blunders that prevented the Quebec breakthrough on which he'd placed all his hopes.

Here's what this means: Canada is gradually turning Conservative. Setting aside personalities and the vagaries of leadership politics, the Conservative party has found its way to a policy bedrock -- on taxes, support for the military, sovereignty in the Far North, gun control, foreign affairs, and the role of government itself -- that suits millions of Canadians.

Given a more personally moderate leader and fewer bitter partisans in cabinet, the Conservatives could win a majority next time out. If Harper becomes that more personally moderate leader, he may lead them to it himself. The tenor and content of his post-election speech suggests he intends to do precisely that.

For the Liberals, all busily scapegoating Dion and moaning about his Green Shift, this signals mortal peril.

It should not be lost on any of them that their "policy platform" in this campaign was a milquetoast rehash of the very ideas that failed to win the day for former leader Paul Martin in 2006. A big, expensive, national daycare program; billions more for a system of native reserves that isn't working and hasn't worked for years; an excessively bureaucratic, big-government slant on gun control; knee-jerk anti-Americanism; blind antipathy for any approach to medicare other than simply throwing billions more at the existing system, which is quickly outgrowing our ability to fund it.

This election was an alarm bell for the Liberal Party of Canada. Tossing out the leader is the tip of the iceberg.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081017/dion_presser_081017/20081017?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Dion widely expected to announce resignation Monday

CTV.ca News Staff

Updated Fri. Oct. 17 2008 11:05 PM ET

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is expected to announce his resignation Monday afternoon at a press conference in Ottawa.

His office released a media alert on Friday announcing Monday's 2 p.m. press conference.

Dion has not spoken publicly since losing his bid to become prime minister in Tuesday's election.

CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Friday evening that Dion was leaning towards stepping down.

"I've spoken to people very close to Mr. Dion and they say they expect him to step down on Monday," Fife said. "He's a defeated general without an army and he knows he can't survive a leadership review vote."

Fife said that party elders have said that Liberal MP Ken Dryden may take over an interim leader as the Liberals prepare for a leadership convention.

Former Liberal Party president Stephen LeDrew was one of many Liberals, on and off the record, who have called for Dion to step down.

"What he should do is resign immediately," LeDrew told CTV's Mike Duffy Live Friday. "I think this man is intellectually arrogant.

"When Dion said on election night, 'I've been elected opposition minister' -- that was the goofiest statement in political history.

"Stephane Dion does not pay attention to the party or pay attention to advice."

The Toronto Star's Linda Diebel wrote a book about Dion and covered his campaign this year. She says that Dion has taken his election loss quite hard.

"He's in a lot of pain, and he's making a decision," Diebel told Mike Duffy Live Friday.

Insiders say that until election night Dion thought he had a shot at becoming prime minister, despite poor polling numbers.

"That was very much the impression I had," Diebel said regarding the issue.

Calls for action

On Thursday, Liberal spokesperson George Young said media reports that Dion would announce his resignation this week were false.

"We will properly advise the media when M. Dion is prepared to speak publicly," Young said.

Meanwhile, on Thursday night, Liberal MP Joe Volpe publicly called on Dion to "signal his intentions" about whether he will step down.

"I think the best thing that would happen for the party, and indeed for Mr. Dion, would be if he gives a signal as early as possible," Joe Volpe told CTV's Mike Duffy Live Thursday.

Volpe pointed out that the Liberals have an impending convention in May 2009 and Dion needs to let the party know if that conference is going to become a leadership convention.

When asked if Dion should quit, Volpe responded that "Dion has earned the right to stay on probably as an interim leader."

If Dion doesn't resign, he'll automatically face a vote of confidence at the convention -- which few predict he could survive.

The Liberals campaigned on an unpopular carbon tax and ended up winning only 76 seats, their poorest showing since 1984. Before the election was called, the Liberals held 95 seats in Parliament.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://stevejanke.com/archives/275756.php

The Liberals start saving the pennies by dropping the Green Shift

By Steve Janke

Angry in the Great White North blog (10/16/08)

The Liberal Party is broke. The collapse in the popular vote means far less money coming in from the government. Donations, which have been an anemic source of funds for the Liberals, will like drop even lower, and much of it will be vacuumed up by the leadership candidates from the last leadership convention, still struggling to pay off their debts. That includes Stephane Dion, who will be quitting as Liberal Party leader.

With Stephane Dion gone, and money in such short supply, it is no surprise that the Liberal Party has dropped all official references to the Green Shift carbon tax. It was costing them money in licensing to Jennifer Wright of Green Shift Inc.

Stephane Dion's Green Shift, the plan to save the planet through taxes on carbon, is gone. Have you been to the website?

It redirects to the Liberal Party page. No more income calculator, no more pictures of Al Gore shaking Stephane Dion's hand. All gone. The Liberal Party didn't just scrub the Green Shift site clean of references to Stephane Dion. The Liberal Party deep-sixed the site in its entirety.

I think a huge part of this is the licensing fee the Liberals were paying to Jennifer Wright's Green Shift Inc for the use of the name. That arrangement arose out of the settlement of the lawsuit started by Wright against the Liberal Party for using the name of her company as the name of Stephane Dion's carbon tax plan.

Now that the election has been lost, these expensive mistakes can finally be rectified. The Liberal Party can't afford the Green Shift.

Funny. Wasn't that the argument Stephen Harper was using, that Canadians could not afford the Green Shift?

It is interesting, though, that the environment itself has been pushed away as an issue. The post-election message makes no mention of the environment, Green Shift or otherwise:

Now that the election is behind us, we must prepare for a new session of Parliament, where our MPs and Senators will be called on to address some serious challenges, including the global financial downturn, the weakening Canadian economy, and others.

And others? The environment has been relegated to "others"?

I wonder whether this goes farther than just an attempt to save some cash

Indeed, the scope of the Liberal Party loss, thanks to Stephane Dion, might have rendered the notion of a carbon tax radioactive for years to come, no matter what it is called.

I'll bet that when that sinks in, more than a few environmentalists will be very upset with Stephane Dion. Those environmentalists are going to be demanding a new carbon tax plan of the next Liberal Party leader, whoever he or she is. But it looks like the Liberal Party has already decided that won't be happening. Not if it costs the party money or votes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/3200044/Canadian-election-Carbon-tax-proposals-sealed-Liberal-defeat.html

Canadian election: Carbon tax proposals sealed Liberal defeat

The Canadian dollar barley moved on news that the Conservatives had won a strong minority in the country's snap general election.

By Fred Langan in Toronto

Telegraph.co.uk

15 Oct 2008

The Liberals were handed a sound defeat on the issue of the environment, especially a carbon tax to fight global warming.

"I don't believe that it will completely die, but it's tough to see it being advanced by the Conservatives after they campaigned so stridently against it," said Doug Porter, an economist with BMO Capital Markets.

"I suspect that given the current financial market turmoil, the likelihood of at least a moderate North American recession, and the unpopularity of the B.C. carbon tax, that a national carbon tax will be put aside for some time.”

The election will not change the government’s commitment to keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan. The left wing New Democrats, who have 37 seats, want to bring the troops home. On Tuesday night their leader, Jack Layton, indicated he would pressure the government to end its commitment to Afghanistan.

Conservatives feel they will be able to act as if they are majority, since none of the opposition parties will defeat the government and bring on another election.

“This is a big pickup in seats for the Conservatives even if there isn’t a majority,” said a former Conservative advisor.

The Conservatives won several ridings, as constituencies are called in Canada, in the Toronto area. That is considered a major breakthrough, allowing the Conservatives to consolidate their urban power base and shed their traditionally western and rural image.

Liberals put a positive spin on what was a disaster for its leader, a man who won the leadership in a compromise.

“We kept Mr. Harper from winning his majority. It’s a result that gives us a chance to build,” said Bob Rae, a Liberal who won his Toronto seat and lost the leadership race to Mr Dion. “He (Mr Dion) will continue to have my support.”

It is expected that there will be a challenge to Mr Dion's leadership in the coming weeks.

“It’s impossible that Dion will be leader,” said David Herle, a former Liberal organizer who said the Liberals won the lowest percentage of the popular vote in their history. “He chose the issue he wanted to run on and this is the result.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/10/15/crbntx/index.html?source=rss

Canada's Election Deals Defeat to Liberal Party and Carbon Tax

GRIST Environmental News & Commentary

Posted at 5:30 AM on 15 Oct 2008

Canada's national election on Tuesday strengthened the country's Conservative Party minority in Parliament and summarily killed hopes for a national carbon tax to fight global warming. The carbon tax plan, which would have levied a tax on most fossil fuels but would have been offset by income-tax reductions, was a main plank of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's environmental platform. However, the plan proved too easy of a target for Conservatives who painted it as a costly new tax increase at a time of economic uncertainty.

Much of the Liberal defeat was also due to a divided left; the Liberals failed to unite with the New Democratic Party and the Green Party to defeat the Conservatives' majority. (Green Party Leader Elizabeth May failed to win her party's first parliamentary seat.) Tuesday's election also dealt a huge blow to the Liberals' leader, Dion. Formerly the country's environment minister, Dion made a name for himself as a champion of the Kyoto treaty, but he's widely expected to be replaced as party leader soon due to the huge election losses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1084798.html

Election 2008: Two for purgatory

The ChronicleHerald.ca

2008-10-15

WELL, that was a lot of fuss for déjà vu. The Tories racked up 20 more seats last night. But at the end of the show here we are again with another minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

There’s no denying Mr. Harper made big gains last night, particularly in B.C. and in the eroding Liberal stronghold of Greater Toronto. There the Tories finally stormed the red citadel in the course of picking up 10 more Ontario seats.

But these strides still left Mr. Harper standing pretty much where he started, well short of the parliamentary majority required to be the transformational prime minister he would like to be.

He has himself to kick for coming up short. If he hadn’t goaded Danny Williams into war, if he hadn’t booted Bill Casey from caucus (creating a local hero who took 78 per cent of the vote in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley last night), if he hadn’t had a tin ear on culture and crime in Quebec after all his work in wooing Quebecers, then Mr. Harper might have eeked out his majority – which is the only thing this election was ever really about.

Instead, he wins another round of purgatory. That’s the best way to describe minority government for a leader as uncompromising, ambitious and controlling as Mr. Harper.

Still, his post-election purgatory is preferable to Stephane Dion’s. Mr. Dion has to face the reality that the Tories’ 20-seat gain on less than half a per cent rise in the popular vote is due to a plunge in the Liberal vote to a mere 28 per cent. This translated into Liberals losing seats everywhere except Newfoundland (thanks to Danny Williams’ ABC campaign) and Quebec.

If Mr. Harper’s big campaign error was blowing potential gains in Quebec, Mr. Dion’s was building a campaign around the Green Shift.

Electorally, it was a shift that simply didn’t work for the Liberals. It shifted old supporters out of the party in fear that it would raise their energy costs, but did not seem to shift idealistic new ones in.

Although Mr. Dion was, as he fairly claimed, the greenest mainstream party leader on offer, green voters didn’t come to him in any numbers in the end. The shift was beyond what mainstream voters were ready to do for the environment; the green vanguard proved fickle and so the great green gamble was a fizzle.

For this and for betting so much on this huge sales job before he had sold the public on himself, Mr. Dion is going to have a hard fight holding on to the Liberal leadership, if he still wants it.

And the failure of even greens to rally around the Green Shift may ensure that it’s a very long time before another party leader goes out on a green limb again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081015/ap_on_re_ca/canada_election

After victory, Canada PM keeps focus on economy

By ROB GILLIES, Associated Press Writer

Oct 15, 5:33 pm ET

OTTAWA – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a new economic plan Wednesday, a day after his Conservative Party's re-election victory fell short of a Parliament majority amid voter disgruntlement over his slow response to the global financial meltdown.

Harper had shored up his party's standing in recent days by taking a more forceful stand on economic problems — helped by even deeper unhappiness over the opposition Liberals' push for a new tax on all fossil fuels except gasoline — and he kept to that theme after the ballot.

"The No. 1 job of the prime minister of Canada is to protect this country's economy, our earnings, our savings and our jobs, during a time of global economic uncertainty," Harper said. "The mandate we received allows us to continue moving forward."

His plan calls for reined in government spending and presenting Parliament with a budget that takes account of the credit crisis by the end of November. He said he would meet with Canada's provincial leaders as well as his counterparts in the Group of 7 major industrial nations to discuss economic needs.

In his concession speech late Tuesday, Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion offered his "full cooperation in these difficult economic times."

Harper promised to ensure that Canada's banks are not hurt by government moves in the United States and Europe to buy up stakes in their own banks to shore up balance sheets.

"We are examining what other countries are doing very closely to make sure that our banks are not put a competitive disadvantage," Harper said. "Frankly, our leading banks are now some of the largest banks in the Western world as a consequence of what's going on."

He declined to say what options he was considering but said it would not involve a lot of taxpayers money.

When Harper called early elections last month, opinion polls indicated the Conservatives had a good chance to expand to a majority in Parliament — after governing as a minority since a 2006 election victory and needing the help of the opposition to pass legislation.

But the party's support sagged, and polls said voters felt the prime minister's response to the growing worldwide crisis was tepid. He had said Canadians weren't worried about jobs or mortgages, and a few days after he called stocks cheap, Canada's main exchange had its worst week in almost 70 years.

Harper changed tack, assuring Canadians that he understand their worries while stressing the theme that Canada's economic and fiscal performance has been much better than in the U.S. and Europe. Last week, his government announced it would buy up to $21 billion in mortgages from Canada's banks in an effort to maintain the availability of credit.

In the end, the Conservatives won 143 of Parliament's 308 seats, an improvement over the 127 in the previous Parliament but short of the 155 needed to govern on its own.

Voters gave a harsher verdict on the Liberal Party, which has been the dominant party for most of Canada's history but plunged from 95 Parliament seats to 76. The separatist Bloc Quebecois won 50 seats, the New Democrats 37 and independent candidates 2.

Stephen Clarkson, a political economy professor at the University of Toronto, said Harper's slow reaction to the financial crisis hurt him some on election day. But he said the 10 percent rise on the country's main stock exchange Tuesday may have helped the prime minister.

"That must have made people feel a bit better," Clarkson said, although stocks lost a little over half the election day rise on Wednesday.

Economics wasn't the only factor in the Conservatives failure to win a majority. Clarkson said cuts in cultural funding didn't go over well in the French-speaking province of Quebec, where Harper had been counting on winning more seats for the Conservatives.

Clarkson also noted that Harper has been buoyed by the significant gain in seats held by the Conservatives even if he did fail to get the majority he coveted.

"He probably feels that he should provoke an election fairly soon and get his majority after all — particularly if the Liberals are in disarray, divided about their present leader or fighting over who should be the next leader," Clarkson said.

Dion, the leader of the left-of-center Liberals, signaled he was not ready to step down despite the party suffering one of its worst losses, telling supporters that Canadians wanted him to be the official opposition leader.

But Dion could face a rebellion from some in his own party who consider him a weak leader. His call for the fossil fuel tax was widely unpopular, and the Quebec native turned off many people in Canada's English-speaking regions with his mangled grammar and often impenetrable accent.

In calling the election just before the escalation in the financial crisis, Harper became the first major world leader to face voters amid the economic turmoil.

Harper said Wednesday that he would meet Friday with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Union's administrative authority, as part of a previously scheduled Canada-EU economic summit.

The meeting was originally planned to discuss a possible free trade agreement between Canada and the EU but the credit crisis seems to have derailed those talks.

"At the summit we will also explore strengthening the economic partnership between us and the EU," Harper said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1481995820081015

Canadian Green leader May loses bid for seat

Reuters

Oct 14, 2008 10:53pm EDT

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Oct 14 (Reuters) - Green Party leader Elizabeth May, a proponent of a Canadian carbon tax, fell short on Tuesday in her bid to become the environmental party's first elected member of the nation's Parliament, according to media projections.

May lost an attempt to unseat Conservative Defense Minister Peter MacKay in Nova Scotia, an effort by the Greens that was seen as a long shot despite an agreement by the Liberals not to field a candidate in that race.

The Greens' only current member of the Canada's Parliament is Blair Wilson, elected in 2006 as a Liberal in British Columbia before becoming an independent and joining the Greens days before the election campaign began in September.

Wilson, whose switch to the Greens allowed May to participate in the national party leaders' debate, was considered unlikely to keep his seat.

May, a bubbly political and environmental activist, said she expects to remain as a party leader despite not getting a seat. "It's not perfect, but it's not unheard of," she told CTV Television.

May made only one cross-country campaign trip -- a whistle-stop tour using a regularly scheduled passenger train -- and spent nearly all her time campaigning to win the seat in her home province of Nova Scotia.

May had an unusual agreement with Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion to not field candidates against each other. Both supported the adoption of a national carbon tax.

The parties denied the deal meant they were opponents in name only, and Dion warned late in the campaign that votes for the Greens would only hurt his own uphill battle against Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been projected by three television networks to win a stronger minority government. (Reporting by Allan Dowd, Editing by Eric Walsh)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101202278.html

Canadian Leader Faces Election Test: Harper Hopes Foe's Carbon Tax Flops

By Rob Gillies

Associated Press

Monday, October 13, 2008; A15

TORONTO, Oct. 12 -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is gambling that an opposition pushing an unpopular carbon tax will steer voters to the right in Tuesday's election and bolster his hold on power.

If the polls are any indication, though, Canada's third national ballot in a little more than four years will give the country yet another minority government.

The opposition Liberals have traditionally been the party in power in Ottawa, forming the government for more than two-thirds of the past 100 years.

But voters went for Harper's Conservatives in 2006, albeit not in sufficient numbers to give the party an outright majority in the 308-seat Parliament. That forced the Conservatives to rely on the opposition to pass budgets and legislation until Harper dissolved Parliament last month.

In the election campaign, opponents have portrayed the prime minister as someone who would reshape the landscape in the manner of a U.S.-style Republican, a charge Harper rejects.

"Just because someone's a Conservative doesn't mean he's George Bush," Harper told voters in Quebec on Saturday.

The signature issue of Liberal leader Stéphane Dion is a proposal for a carbon tax on all fossil fuels except gasoline.

Conservatives say the "Green Shift" tax plan would drive up energy costs. Dion has said he would offset the higher energy prices by cutting income taxes, but he has had little success selling the plan.

Harper, meanwhile, hurt his cause by saying during a debate that Canadians were not concerned about their jobs or their mortgages.

He has since tried to undo the damage by saying he knows Canadians are concerned about the economy. On Sunday, he contrasted Canada's economic and fiscal performance to the United States'.

"Americans are running deficits. We're running surpluses. Americans are incurring debt. We're paying down debt," Harper said. "We have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. . . . We have a better economic situation than the United States because, for 2 1/2 years, we have made better choices."

Recent polls show Harper is rebounding. A Harris-Decima poll put voter support for Conservatives at 35 percent, the Liberals at 26 percent and the New Democrats at 18 percent. The left-of-center vote is divided among four parties, which may allow Harper to win a majority government even with less than 40 percent of the overall vote.

ITSSD Reports: OBAMA Deceives American Public: 'PUTS OTHER COUNTRIES FIRST' With 'Green Collar Jobs' SCAM That 'Outsources' Windmill Manufacturing

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:29:00 +0000

Readers should investigate for themselves recently uncovered evidence that Obama's 'Green Collar Jobs' plan will actually result in the future outsourcing of America's renewable energy wind technology and manufacturing base to Europe and Asia, and the attraction of even more illegal immigrants across US borders to take whatever low-paying and low-skilled jobs remain in that burgeoning industry sector. Readers should thus decide for themselves whether the Obama Green Collar Jobs pledge is nothing more than a Green Collar Jobs Scam.

[See:

1) Obama Boasts Plans for Millions of New GREEN COLLAR Jobs That Cannot be Outsourced; Can He Deliver? Hillary Says NO!!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at:
http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-boasts-plans-for-millions-of-new.html

2) How Can Obama Deliver Millions of U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' Renewable Energy (Wind) Manufacturing Jobs If They Are Mostly Owned/Outsourced By/To Europe?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at:
http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-us.html

3) How Can Obama Deliver Millions of 'GREEN COLLAR' Jobs If Most Windmill Manufacturing Jobs Will be Outsourced to China and India?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at:
http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-green.html

4) How Can Obama Deliver Millions of Low Paying and Low-Skilled Green Collar Jobs to Americans If They Can Easily Be Given to Illegal Immigrants?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at:
http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-low.html ].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-implies-m.html

Obama Implies McCain Puts Other Countries First

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

ABC News Blog

September 12, 2008 4:05 PM

A pretty scathing charge from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., this morning as he spoke to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and assailed Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., position on free trade.

"Just ask the machinists in Pennsylvania who build Harley-Davidsons," Obama said of McCain's record.

"Because John McCain didn’t just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions 'disgraceful.' Just ask the workers across this country who have seen their jobs outsourced. The very companies that shipped their jobs overseas have been rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks that John McCain supports and plans to continue." "So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting 'Country First,'" Obama said, "it’s fair to ask –- which country?"

Um ... isn't that pretty much the dictionary definition of questioning someone's patriotism?
- jpt

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=35BED0E74735DBE97F3C6051776C517F?diaryId=8196

Obama Asks Whether McCain Is Putting "Country First"

by: David Sirota

Open LEFT

Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 07:00

Yesterday morning, my nationally syndicated newspaper column asked whether, in fact, Republicans really do put "country first?" On the afternoon of the same day, Barack Obama asked the same question.

Here's a snippet of my column:

In 2004, the Republican White House called outsourcing "a plus." In 2006, the Republican commander-in-chief okayed the sale of critical infrastructure to foreign dictators. And today the Republican presidential nominee is demanding more NAFTA-style trade pacts that eliminate American jobs. This, says the GOP, is putting our country first.

Here's Obama in a speech in the afternoon of the same day:

"Just ask the machinists in Pennsylvania who build Harley-Davidsons," Obama said of McCain's record. "Because John McCain didn't just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions 'disgraceful.' Just ask the workers across this country who have seen their jobs outsourced. The very companies that shipped their jobs overseas have been rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks that John McCain supports and plans to continue.

"So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting 'Country First,'" Obama said, "it's fair to ask -- which country?"

Let's be clear: I'm not saying my column in any way influenced Obama's speech. What I'm saying is that this line of questioning may be exactly what starts resonating and starts being echoed by the entire Democratic/progressive machine.

I say keep it up, Barack. It's a good question to ask.

EURObama's Ideal-ist Climate Change Policy, Like Europe's, is NOT 'Real' Change, But More of the Same!!

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:02:00 +0000

http://euobserver.com/9/26731?print=1

Europeans worry but do little about climate change

RENATA GOLDIROVA

EU Observer

September 12, 2008 - Today @ 09:14 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - An overwhelming majority of Europeans - 62 percent - consider climate change the second most serious problem facing the world today, a fresh EU poll has shown. However, they have little appetite for turning green when it comes to their lifestyle.

[THIS IS NOT CHANGE, BUT MORE OF THE SAME!]

"There is a clear gap between what citizens say and what citizens are doing about fighting climate change," EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said on Thursday (11 September), while presenting the survey.

Arctic ice: Europeans worry about global warming but do little beyond sorting waste for recycling.

Although 61 percent of Europeans say they are taking some kind of action against climate change, it is limited to minor personal or financial effort such as separating waste for recycling and reducing consumption of energy, water or throw-away products.

Mr Dimas cited two main reasons for the inactivity - a lack of information about the causes and consequences of climate change and a lack of decisiveness on the side of public and private sectors.

[ISN'T THE 'EU INSPIRED, IDEALIST U.S. BLUE PARTY GUILTY OF MORE OF 'THE SAME'??]

Four in ten Europeans feel poorly informed about the subject, with the commissioner describing the level as "disappointing." They also expect governments, companies and industries to lead by example and change their behaviour.

In total, some 60 percent of people believe global warming is not an unstoppable phenomenon and can be changed.

Cypriots most concerned; Czechs least

The survey was carried out in all 27 EU states as well as in Croatia, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in the Turkish Cypriot community. In total, it involved 30,170 people and cost €240,000.

Only the issue of poverty (68%) scores higher than climate change (62%) in citizens' minds as to which is the most serious global problem.

"It seems that European citizens are very interested about what's happening in the world, maybe they are little less selfish than we might have imagined if they give these problems such a high level of importance," said Italian Socialist Guido Sacconi, the chair of the European Parliament temporary committee on climate change.

Broken down by countries, Cypriots (96%), Greeks (90%) and Slovenians (80%) have shown the greatest concern about global warming. Citizens of the Czech Republic (45%), Portugal (47%) and Italy (47%) are on the bottom of the same chart.

In the Czech Republic, the most visible critic of the climate change discourse is the country's own president, Vaclav Klaus. He has repeatedly questioned the general belief that climate change is man-made and the value of the tools used to combat it.

"A few years ago, more people thought that it [global warming] was not caused by human activity, now almost everybody and the majority of scientists believe it is anthropogenic," commissioner Dimas told journalists, adding: "even [US] President Bush has come to accept it."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG53SH

Two New Ads: 'Real Change' and 'Still'

By Sam Graham-Felsen -

Sep 12th, 2008 at 9:38 am EDT

Today, the Obama campaign released two new 30-second TV ads, Real Change, which details what "change" is to Senator Obama and Still which details why John McCain would just be another out of touch president offering more of the same.

Watch Real Change...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.realchange.com/en-ca/index.aspx

http://www.realchange.com/en-ca/fichenouvelle.aspx?infoid=279&catid=13

June 5, 2008 FIRST TRANSATLANTIC GREEN PLATFORM

Only a comprehensive approach encompassing public policy, financing of R&D and innovation, and market adoption from major large corporations will lead to a green revolution. The Transatlantic Green Platform is committed to foster such an approach by generating concrete business deals, investments, partnerships and specific policy proposals between around 200 key European and US Green Tech players.

The first Transatlantic Green Platform: for connecting US and European key players provided a unique opportunity to explore some of the new mega trends in Green Tech and to create a high-level forum of innovative companies, experts, investors and policy makers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://labaulewic.org/programme/special_green_platform.asp

http://labaulewic.org/documents/Programme/GreenPlatform/GreenPlatform-Program.pdf

US - Europe, a Strategic Alliance for Green Technologies

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California

We lead the nation in information technology, in nanotechnology, in medical technology, in biotechnology. We generate one of every four U.S. patents. We attract almost half of all U.S. venture capital. According to The Economist magazine, California is also home to three of the top six universities in the world. In addition to all of this, California is the seventh largest economy in the world.

I do not mention these things simply to boast. I mention them because when California does something, it has consequences. And here is what we are doing. California is mobilizing — technologically, financially and politically — to fight global climate change. Now, we are not alone. While California is leading in the U.S., we are building on the work of the European countries who have led the way up to now. England has already met its Kyoto goals. Germany has pioneered solar. The EU has led with its trading system.

[THE GOVERNATOR SHOULD CHECK HIS FACTS WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. THIS ONLY PROVES THE POINT ABOVE: IT ISN'T CHANGE, BUT MORE OF THE SAME!]

But California, because of its unique position, is on the cutting edge of what is to come. What we’re doing is changing the dynamic, preparing the way and encouraging the future.

[DEAR GOVERNOR, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACILITATING MARKETS and CREATING MARKETS. WHICH HAS CALIFORNIA EMBARKED ON??]

The aerospace industry built the modern economy of Southern California. The computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley. And now green, clean technology — along with biotech — will take California to the next level. Right now, in California, the brightest scientists from around the world and the smartest venture capitalists are racing to find new energy technologies. It’s a race fueled by billions of dollars. Last year alone, California received more than $1.1 billion in clean tech investment. This amount is expected to grow 20-30% a year for a decade. More venture capital is being invested in clean tech than in telecommunications. I have been in the labs and research parks. I have talked to the scientists and venture capitalists.

[THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE - LED BY THE MARKETS, & NOT BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNMENT!]

My question today is this: are the nations of the world ready to change? I believe California will do great things, amazing things. But we need the world to do great things, too”.

United Nations speech

[OUR QUESTION FOR THE GOVERNATOR IS: IS THIS 'REAL' CHANGE or MORE OF THE SAME??]

José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission

The vision was set out last year with leadership from the European political community. It was consolidated by European leadership at the Bali Conference. Now we will show how a modern economy can be designed to meet the challenge. This is [GREEN-CENTRIC] sustainable development in action. Today’s package adds up to a detailed roadmap to bring about the political vision [IDEALISM] agreed last year. To bring about a 20% cut in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and be ready to step up to 30% with an international agreement. To reach 20% of energy use through renewables by 2020.

[WE STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION CHECK WITH HIS SUBORDINATES CONCERNING THE ABILITY TO DELIVER ON THESE IDEALS & PROMISES.]

The package includes:

An updated Emissions Trading System to create a borderless ETS to drive cuts in greenhouse
gas emissions from big industrial emitters. Specific, binding national targets so that member
States know exactly what they have to do outside the ETS, in sectors like transport, buildings,
agriculture and waste. A new approach to actively promote renewable targets, again including binding national targets. New rules to stimulate carbon capture and storage, tomorrow’s technology to cut emissions. New state aid rules. Part of our mandate was the 10% target for biofuels, so that transport plays a part in emissions cuts. I want to be clear that in putting forward proposals on biofuels, we have also fully respected the other side of the mandate, the need for environmental sustainability. So the proposal creates the most comprehensive and sustainable system anywhere in the world for the certification of biofuels — and for domestic and imported biofuels alike. We will also continue to promote the rapid development of second generation biofuels.

The key principles

The package of measures proposed today is the most far-reaching legislative proposals to be made by the European Commission for many years. How did we set about shaping this complex package? We spent a lot of time exploring options in great detail. But we always held firm to five key principles. But we must not forget the huge economic opportunity represented by Europe’s transition into a low-emissions economy.

Europe’s leadership also means showing how the technology is there, how we will need an
effective and competitive industrial sector up to the challenge. There are real opportunities
there: the renewables sector alone will bring one million jobs by 2020. I am sure that once again, European industry will show its ability to innovate and adapt. Europe can be the first economy for the low-carbon age: we must seize this chance”.

European Parliament speech

Canadian Election Debates Focus on Economic, NOT Green Dimensions of Energy Security; U.S. Leaders Must Also 'Put Country First'

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:57:00 +0000

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2008/09/05/day-threerepublicans.aspx

Harper and his Conservatives have best shot

By Diane Francis

Canadian Financial Post

September 05, 2008

Looks like Canadians will be voting in the middle of the noisy, fascinating American election. The timing for Canada's Conservative Party couldn't be better.

The advantage is because the rumpus south of the border will focus on two main issues: America’s economic problems (articulated by Democrats) and the need for energy security of supply (vocalized by both Democrats and Republicans).

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Tories this is good news: They can fairly say Canada’s economy is okay, thank you very much, and that this is mostly due to our boom in energy and commodities production out west which has spread across the country in the form of manufacturing outputs, higher farm prices and brawn power.

Is this enough to give a majority to Harper who, with the exception of the stupid income trust move, has done a credible job?It's possible but a Tory majority is only possible if they sweep the west and pick up a bunch of the seats where they second-placed in Quebec. Charest is a buddy of Harper’s and has gained in popularity there which may bode well.

Meanwhile, [Federal Liberal leader Stephane] Dion is totally out of sync with the U.S. election situation, the geopolitical realities and the economy’s fragile performance.

West should be best

Besides that, nothing and no one will, or should, stop development of Alberta’s massive oil sands or the boom in the mining sector across Canada.

Here's what is in store for the resource sector in Canada: The next President of the U.S., from either party, will finally agree, after 25 years of dickering, to subsidizing the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. This will lead to construction of Canada’s Mackenzie Line or the blending of the two by linking the gas fields at the top of the world, come-what-may.Fixing the environment is only possible through global diplomacy and technological advance.

Dion’s Green Shift is political suicide: it imposes an untried and questionable carbon tax on businesses, farmers and manufacturers across the country as well as Western Canada’s energy industry.

The environment is a critical issue, but the GreenShift centerpiece also flunks because it will transgress existing international agreements. (This is always a good idea for Canada and its workers who are more dependent upon trade than any others in the world.)

Back to academia for Dion appears to be a nice, bright fellow but his tenure as Liberal leader has taught him little about elections and less about politics. Instead of attacking the Harper record, and there are a few vulnerabilities, he is behaving like an incumbent and now finds himself defending a sweeping policy change which is unproven anywhere.

Politics 101 is that government lose elections. They don’t win them.

The Liberals have been back-biting in committees, disrupting governance, without much success. By so doing, they have asked for an election they are poorly positioned to wage. Of course, Dion’s “henchmen”, who haven't set him straight, happen to be his arch rivals like Michael Ignatieff, a foreign academic whose blog support about the GreenShift is embarrassing and should be required reading, and NDPer Bob Rae, now a Liberal of convenience. Both wouldn’t mind Dion flopping so they can try and replace him as leader.

All Hail Harper

As for the environment, Harper has in place his smartest and most talented cabinet minister – John Baird. And the Tories have been well-advised to push the Green Party’s participation in the upcoming debates to spoil and split the Grit and NDP vote.Canadian business voters, and those concerned about geopolitics as well as about Canada continuing to cash in on its unique competitive advantages at this point in time, have no choice but to vote Tory.

My guess is that the Harper government will be returned by voters, but fall short of a majority.-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=777429

Greens shut out of leaders' debate

Juliet O’Neill, Andrew Mayeda and Nicole Baer, Canwest News Service

September 08, 2008

The Greens' Elizabeth May has been excluded from participating in the federal leaders' debates, the media consortium that organizes the event announced Monday.

Three parties opposed the Greens inclusion in the debate, the consortium said in a news release, "and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debates." The consortium did not specify which parties -- out of the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois -- opposed May's inclusion in the debates.

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all," the release said.

[AT FIRST GLANCE, THIS APPEARS TO OFFEND DUE PROCESS OF LAW. EVEN THE GREENS, WITH THEIR PREPOSTEROUS IDEAS, ARE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD, i.e., UNLESS SOMETHING IS ASKEW!!]

The Greens say their position to be included in the debates was bolstered late last month when they snagged their first sitting MP, and the consortium's move could provoke the party to take the matter to the courts. Green lawyer Peter Rosenthal last week said if May is not included, the party could seek a judicial review of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and its "failure to ensure equity during political broadcasting."

The first national debate will be held in French in Ottawa on Oct. 1, with the English-language debate to follow the next evening.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked his opinion on the matter on Monday at a campaign event in Richmond, B.C., and said he would withhold judgment on the consortium's decision until it was released.

He did say, however, it would be "unfair in principle" to allow May to participate because he characterized her as a Liberal candidate.

"Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stephane Dion, she is his candidate in [the Nova Scotia riding of] Central Nova and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates, who are essentially running on the same platform, in the same debate," said Harper.

[NOW, PROOF OF THIS FACT, i.e., 'DOUBLE-DIPPING', WOULD BE MATERIAL TO A COURT'S RULING.]

Also in Richmond, a Vancouver suburb, Harper slammed the opposition parties for positions he said are not friendly to families.

And in a reversal of the charge often leveled against him, he accused the opposition of having a "not-so hidden agenda" to increase taxes and spending -- that includes hiking the GST back up after the Tories reduced it by two percentage points, and cancelling the universal child-care benefit.

"In this election, we will campaign on sensible, balanced and affordable promises," Harper told reporters. "We cannot -- and we will not -- get into a bidding war with the opposition. That is a fundamental choice in this campaign: Do we stay the course or do we go back to an agenda of tax and spend?"

Harper pointed to a range of policies introduced by his Conservative government over the past two years he said improve the well-being and financial security of families. These include income tax cuts, a $100-a-month benefit for parents of children under age six, and a new tax-free savings account that will come into force in January.

His comments followed a photo opportunity at the kitchen table of a young Chinese-Canadian family.

Moreover, he alleged, Dion's signature Green Shift plan would burden Canadians further with an added carbon tax -- "a tax on top of all the other taxes" that governments impose.

Dion, however, angrily denied the assertions, telling reporters at a rally in the Montreal-area riding of St-Lambert that the Harper Conservatives "should not try to win an election by lying."
"They are piling lies on lies. Canadians will never accept that. It's not a way to have an election."
Dion argued, the Liberal Green Shift plan would improve the lives of Canadian families. It would raise $15 billion through new taxes on carbon-based fuel such as coal, diesel fuel, and jet fuel, but not on gasoline, and apply the revenues to income tax cuts and programs to encourage clean energy and conservation.

[AN ADMISSION OF SIGNIFICANT NEW TAX & OTHER COST INCREASES, DIRECTLY FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH!!]

Meanwhile, in Fort Smith, N.W.T., NDP Leader Jack Layton had his campaign plane fly 1,500 metres above Western Canada's oilsands region to show Canadians one of the first things he would change as prime minister.

"I'm sure Harper would prefer that most Canadians didn't know what was going on here," Layton told reporters.

Mining activities and toxic tailing ponds in the oilsands occupy a large area in the region, which stretches from northern Alberta to the territories.

With files from Ben O'Hara-Byrne, Global National

How Can Obama Deliver Millions of Low Paying and Low-Skilled Green Collar Jobs to Americans If They Can Easily Be Given to Illegal Immigrants?

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:35:00 +0000

The following articles strongly suggest that, contrary to the promises made by Presidential aspirant Barack Obama to provide 5 million new 'green collar' American jobs if elected, many such low-paying and low-skilled jobs will likely be taken by or offered to illegal immigrants at the expense of American urban and low-income taxpayers. If a significantly high number of U.S. employers are currently violating US immigration laws by hiring (knowingly or unknowingly) low-cost illegal aliens to perform manual labor work, the likelihood that this trend will continue, if not, increase, is almost certain with respect to future 'green collar' jobs. There is also evidence that the taking by or offering of such jobs to illegal immigrants will trigger even greater societal / racial tensions. For this reason, readers must consider both the Blue Party's immigration policies perceived by the public as potentially amounting to am amnesty, and their labor commitment to provide millions of new American 'green collar jobs' to inner city or otherwise underprivileged citizens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.salisburypost.com/Area/072008-illegal-workers-for-sun2008-07-19T20-34-27

Business owner says illegal immigration costing local jobs

By Mark Wineka

mwineka@salisburypost.com

Salisbury Post

July 20, 2008

Ron Wetzler has had enough.

The owner of Olympic Drywall and Texturing in Rowan County says he's losing out on jobs awarded instead to subcontractors who employ illegal immigrants, mostly Mexicans.

It's happening on both commercial and residential construction projects in Rowan County, Wetzler claims.

He doesn't have proof as to which workers are illegal. The way it works, he says, is usually the subcontractor himself is a legal resident, who then pays his crews — most of whom are here illegally — in cash.

Wetzler says the Hispanic workers' wages are low — maybe $50 a day. No one's paying workers' compensation or liability insurance, and the government is seeing nothing in taxes. It all combines to make it hard for companies such as his to compete.

"They're so far under us in cost," Wetzler says.

He recently reported his suspicions about one job site to the Rowan County Sheriff's Office, which told him to take the matter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

While local sheriff's offices, including Rowan, have stepped up their identification and deportation of illegal immigrants who commit crimes, the emphasis has been just that — illegal immigrants who end up arrested and in county jails.

The N.C. Department of Labor has no program in place to which citizens can report their suspicions about illegal immigrants on job sites. Those calls also are referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's tip line, which for now is about the only recourse Wetzler and others like him have.

The federal tip line number is 1-866-DHS-2ICE.

Nina Pruneda, an ICE public affairs officer in Atlanta, said each complaint is taken seriously, though investigations have to be prioritized, with national security concerns given immediate attention.

If a job site under suspicion involves critical infrastructure such as airports, train stations, courthouses and military installations, "obviously that would send up a flag," Pruneda says.

"Developing sufficient evidence against employers requires complex, white-collar crime investigations that can take years to bear fruit," the ICE says on its Web site. (See the accompanying story on how ICE approaches worksite enforcement.)

In 2005, an estimated 111,630 Hispanics worked in construction in North Carolina — a number approaching half the industry's workforce.

A 2004 study by Dr. James H. Johnson Jr., a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor, said if the Hispanic contributions were withdrawn, the state would lose $10 billion value in construction, $2.7 billion in materials and labor and $145 million in equipment and building rentals.

The value of North Carolina construction work would have been cut by 29 percent, Johnson said.

Mac Butner, executive officer of the Salisbury-Rowan Home Builders Association, says he hears complaints such as Wetzler's 12 to 15 times a year.

"We think the laws of the United States ought to be enforced as far as immigration," Butner says. "If that person is using illegal workers, it needs to be pursued and prosecuted according to the law on the books."

Butner said sometimes complaints about the use of immigrants on job sites are made by businessmen who aren't being competitive in other ways, so they blame "illegals."

But the underlying dilemma always is figuring out who is illegal and who isn't, he says, and the home builders organization can't be a policing agency.

Ron Woodard, director of NC Listen, an immigration reform organization based in Cary, said he also hears complaints about the loss of jobs to employers using illegal aliens as workers.

"Construction is probably the worst," he says. "That and landscaping is where we hear about it the most."

Woodard says employers in North Carolina should use the federal E-Verify system to check the legal residency status of their workers. (See accompanying story.)

Contractors who get jobs because they employ illegals are essentially cheating to win that bid, Woodard says. "And quite frankly, it's un-American," he adds. "... We have a lot of Americans suffering due to a system that's out of control."

Tony Asion, executive director of El Pueblo Inc., a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to strengthening the Latino community and promoting cross-cultural understanding, says for every job a Latino person occupies, he creates two others.

If one looks at the growth in undocumented workers in North Carolina and compares it to an unemployment rate that has stayed the same or declined, "are they really taking away jobs?" Asion asks.

Mai Thi Nguyen, an assistant UNC-Chapel Hill professor and a GlaxoSmithKline faculty fellow with the Institute of Emerging Issues, said in a May report that illegals migrate to areas with labor shortages, thereby filling jobs that are open and not displacing American workers.

"For example," she said, "in the construction industry illegal immigrants might make it more difficult for high school drop-outs to get a construction job, but their labor in the construction industry also sparks growth in the real estate industry, creating jobs for real estate agents, mortgage brokers, loan officers, insurance agents and real estate lawyers."

Johnny Breedlove, another drywall contractor in Rowan County, says if it hadn't been for Hispanics, the country would not have grown as much as it has. But Breedlove also gave an example of how he had to lower his price to compete with a Charlotte firm he suspected of using illegal immigrants.

Breedlove won the contract, but ended up without a profit because, "you can't take money away from the guys who work for you," he says.

Wetzler, in the drywall business for almost 40 years, said that while he would normally charge $23 a sheet, he now finds himself bidding against a company using illegals that charges $13.75 a board.

So he's dropping his price in times when he should probably be going up because of rising fuel prices. It's affecting all trades — tile, vinyl, brick, roofing and others, Wetzler says, adding "Our jobs are at risk every day."

Wetzler hears routinely from local residents with experience in construction begging for work that's not available. "There's nothing I can do to help them, he says. "I wish I could."

Wetzler promises he will be updating his Web site, www.olympicdrywallco.com on this immigration issue and invites others to voice their opinions by e-mails to takebackrowan@aol.com.

The contractor has met with Rowan County Commissioners Jim Sides and Tina Hall and recommended that the county set up a licensing program. It would require all contractors to show their workers compensation documents on each employee, give proof of their employment through pay stubs and allow building inspectors the right to ask questions and check documents on job sites.

It would levy heavy fines, such as $10,000 per violation, for contractors with undocumented workers. "See how fast our Rowan County workers get back to work," Wetzler says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/green-collar-jobs

Green Collar Jobs

The Economic Populist

June 2007

We've heard a few buzz words on the campaign trail about green collar jobs but what exactly is behind the rhetoric?

Green For All is a nonprofit looking to create a green economy not only as a way to stop global warming, but also as a path to economic justice for the economically disadvantaged.

FANTASTIC! A multi-dimensional solution that would:

Create New Industry

Generate American Jobs

Increase US exports

Reduce energy imports

Reduce Global Warming

US investment initiatives certainly could create a new industry to bring about economic fairness, especially for US domestic diversity.

Alas, there is a hitch.

While these think tanks claim green collar jobs cannot be outsourced, oh my, think again!

Sure, low paying service jobs for installation probably cannot be outsourced, but the real middle class job generator is Research, Development and Manufacturing.

Currently the globalization agenda to offshore outsource any middle class job is speeding down the Race to the Bottom road without even a bump.

If corporations cannot offshore outsource the job, they lobby to bring in cheap foreign labor to displace those very Americans this organization is trying to promote. Once again, few will look at the global migration agenda in terms of wages and labor.

This new industry needs (I'm going to say it) some protections to ensure a strategically critical emerging technology industry grows strong in the United States, employs her citizens and helps not only the environment but the U.S. economy.

Senator Bernie Sanders, with Hillary Clinton did pass a Green Jobs Amendment ( here is the actual amendment(pdf)), where retraining for these positions does have priority to the economically disadvantaged. But high skills jobs are heavily targeted for labor arbitrage also!

To date, I am not aware of any initiative to fund further educational and job opportunities for those who already have skills in Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics.

Many STEM professionals have been displaced by the globalization wage arbitrage agenda. These are the very scientists and engineers who could innovate a new industry based on alternative energy advances.

Yet, ensuring that Americans are first up to be employed for jobs in America, while an obvious domestic economic truth, gets buried under lobbyist rhetoric as either protectionist or worse, racist. Jobs for Americans 1st, in America, in their own nation, is simply not racist, especially when realizing US domestic diversity has been disproportately hurt by globalization and wage arbitrage is an age discrimination vehicle.

Putting Americans first in their own country is in the national interest, the US economic interests. Americans first will very much assist the middle class, US domestic diversity and the impoverished, where talent and skills are lost daily to global labor arbitrage.

American Solar Energy Society Green Jobs Report (pdf) states:

The study’s two most striking findings are the size of these industries and the broad economic benefits that could accrue if regulators and policymakers support aggressive growth in these sectors. In 2006, more than 8 million Americans worked in these industries and RE&EE generated $933 billion of revenue. By 2030, under an aggressive deployment forecast scenario, there could be more than 40 million Americans employed in these industries—about one in every four working Americans. And in the aggressive scenario, the RE&EE industries could generate $4.53 trillion in annual revenue.

These growth projections are incredible, yet where is policy or legislation to ensure those new jobs in manufacturing and R&D are going to US professionals? Where is legislation and policy to insure manufacturing starts and stays in the United States?

Retraining for a STEM Professional is an additional Masters degree, university level course work in specialty subjects which segue to alternative energy theory from other Science background areas. Retraining for Professionals is also co-ops and internships. Not only can a professional worker contribute almost immediately in the workplace, co-ops and internships ease transition into newly created research and development career areas as well as advanced manufacturing technology, which often require advanced skills.

Will Americans, be given as a priority and thus supported and enabled to create these jobs of the new alternative energy economy? US professionals are displaced by insourcing (importing cheaper labor), offshore outsourcing and age discrimination daily.

Will tax incentives as well as R&D credits, investments be only available to initiatives that are incorporated in the United States and employ US workers exclusively, in the United States?

Center for American Progress Green Collar Jobs Report (pdf). Yet, note the lack of discussion on insourcing and offshore outsourcing.

Green for All above links to an partner who advocates for illegal immigrants. Now how exactly will they ensure US domestic diversity get these new jobs when their partners seem to be representing the US Chamber of Commerce, enabling illegal, cheap labor or other de facto methods to flood the US labor market with oversupply?

Why is it never mentioned to retrain those in poverty with four year college degrees? It is completely possible, when someone is bright enough and hard working enough, for that person to obtain a four year degree in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). Yet US diversity, disproportionately impoverished, includes single mothers, older workers, Blacks, Hispanics. So why is this idea of offering a true career path, a major educational investment, never mentioned for US domestic diversity? Is there some sort of underlying bias against single mothers, women, older displaced workers, American Hispanics, Blacks which implies somehow a subset of all of these people cannot achieve a university degree in Scientific areas?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://onthecommons.org/content.php?id=1154

The Harsh Economics of “Green Collar Jobs”– or Tom Friedman strikes out, again.

On the Commons Blog

18 Oct 2007

I was first surprised, then pleased, then depressed by Thomas Freidman’s column in The New York Times yesterday. The “Green Collar Solution” began with such promise, in part because it featured Van Jones of Oakland – whose optimism in black-and-green is so sorely needed in our time – but also because Tom Friedman actually wrote a column suggesting that poor black Americans were in his field of vision.

The idea of green -collar jobs – like Van Jones’ suggestion that a green federal government could resuscitate the job market for modestly educated people by retro-fitting government buildings to become far greener – is so right, yet so inadequate.

I am a macro-economist who has spent the better part of a decade trying to find a way off the merry-go-round of poverty, unemployment and prison that awaits modestly educated young people in this country, especially young men of color. Green collar manual labor jobs are certainly a help, and we should try to create as many of these jobs as possible, but there is no green collar road to the middle class for badly educated people. None.

Why not?

The blue collar road to the middle class has collapsed because the global economy is a unified labor market awash in mobile unskilled labor that migrates from country to country in search of work. Green collar construction jobs, should these materialize in large numbers, will attract both native born and immigrant labor from around the world for precisely the same reasons that Filipino, Bangladeshi and Kenyan workers migrate to Dubai to work on construction crews – for a chance to work and feed their families. A substantial portion of this immigrant construction work force will be undocumented – and therefore both cheap and compliant, much more attractive to contractors and the governments paying the bills than native born black and Latino workers who both know their rights and demand that these rights be respected.

Could the US government, or state and local governments pursuing the green collar option, limit jobs to natives only? Of course, just as government can use punitive fines, various tax policies and other measures to force employers to refrain from hiring undocumented labor in most sectors of the labor market. But do we want to turn green collar job growth into another arena for immigrant bashing, pitting desperately poor native workers against desperately poor immigrant workers from around the world? Do we really want to add fuel to the fire of racial conflict across the all too tense black/brown color line? Perhaps we have no choice, but we need to understand what we are doing and be prepared to admit just who we are harming, and by how much.

Then there is the nasty fact that Americans do not like to pay taxes, and green color jobs employing only native-born workers will pay higher wages and benefits, and therefore require a bigger tax bite than the same jobs performed by undocumented labor.

No one in his or her right mind wants a green-collar sweatshop exploiting undocumented workers in the interest of promoting clean buildings and low taxes at the same time.

But promoting opportunity for native-born men and women is an expensive proposition – whether by creating green collar jobs or by offering high quality educational opportunities to children of all colors and conditions in this country.

Of course, the best green collar jobs are those to be created and claimed by well schooled men and women who will design, build and manage a new economy no longer dependent on fossil fuels or that pumps green house gases skyward (or into the ground, for that matter). Building the green society will be the work of generations, but it will also be work done on the basis of the hierarchies of privilege and poverty we permit to flourish, with all the ugly inheritance of rank and misery that goes with the American race-class nexus. I note, with sadness, that Friedman’s picture of a green-collar society does not seem to connected to what we really need: a green and truly fair society that finally breaks with the race-class nexus at the same time that it refits our energy system.

In the end, Friedman’s column enhanced my appreciation for Van Jones as a black-and-green visionary even as it sickened me by demonstrating, again, why elite opinion makers just reinforce the systems of power, control and abuse that constitute the American race-class system. Elite opinion makers always run away from the nasty side of the American system, suggesting small moves while failing to address the hard truths about the American racial system. Offering a small palate of green jobs while refusing to address the structural inequalities that lock millions of people in the American social basement is an example of what can go wrong with green ways of thinking that refuse to see “the blood on the floor.”

I submit that green power, if it is anything more than a device for cleaning up our common environment while preserving, or even extending, contemporary hierarchies of privilege and suffering, must be much, much more radical than anything Tom Friedman could imagine, much less support. Tom Friedman swings and misses, again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://conservativebrotherhood.org/?q=node/97

Blacks Are Harmed By Illegal Immigration

Submitted by kfobbs

The Conservative Black Brotherhood

Mon, 2006-07-24 18:20.

Black Americans Should Not Support Illegal Aliens’ False Civil Rights Claims

Kevin Fobbs

This summer the U.S. House of Representatives will be holding hearings on what to do about the millions of illegal aliens that are in the United States, including here in the state of Michigan. Blacks in Michigan, Ohio, New York, Georgia and all over America have to be wondering, did we just lose another place in the line of American opportunity on May 1st?

On May 1st hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens took to American streets to essentially blackmail America into supporting their alleged “civil rights” which sent up at least a half dozen red flags in the black community.

I’m quite certain that thousands of black mothers and fathers in metro Detroit – who, by the way, are here in this country legally -- who are struggling to obtain a decent education, or affordable housing, or quality health care or a job to support their family just had to wonder why 12 to 20 million illegal aliens think they should suddenly jump ahead of them in hijacking their rights as citizens to the American Dream.

What exactly is a “civil right”? What must one have been deprived of, and under what conditions are these civil rights to be earned or obtained? There is a marked difference between the blood shed, sacrifice made and the entitlements earned by the black civil rights experience of the 19th and 20th century struggles and the current claims of millions of illegal aliens.

So as we reflect during Independence Month this July, the civil rights which each black family earned generation by generation, struggling as citizens under threat of lynching, under threat of fire bombings, under threat of murder… but as citizens is being compared to illegal aliens who want “civil rights” that are not only not earned but they aren’t warranted without citizenship at the expense of our citizen’s independence!

Here we go again…

This isn’t the first time some folks who were not brought against their will and without the “open and obvious” ability to group them by their skin color to systematically deny their rights tried to pin its “civil rights” entitlement to the coattails of the black struggle for civil rights in the hope that leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and millions of black Americans would fall for the rouse. Recently it was gay Americans who claimed several years ago that their struggle was the same as Americans of African decent. It didn’t work.

Even Rev. Jesse Jackson had to admit to no real connection to the threadbare attempt to compares the gay experience to the black struggle as if by some miraculous transformation they or any other group who had not gone through the same valiant struggles should somehow be awarded a “Civil Rights Badge of Constitutional Entitlement” earned and fought for by generations of African Americans since and even before the Civil War.

Now comes another group attempting to attach its claims to black civil rights struggles. The illegal alien movement wants to claim that the 14th Amendment protections apply to them and more importantly to the estimated 600,000 anchor babies in our nation that are incorrectly eventually given full citizenship status.

What is disturbing is that the illegal alien agenda is not a civil rights agenda. The illegal alien agenda attempts to equate evading our border patrols to deserving a civil rights badge of martyrdom. Now 12 to 20 million illegal aliens who for 25 years have simply walked across, swam across, or were driven under cover of darkness across our nation’s border feel they have endured the same comparable experience to the countless harrowing “Underground Railroad” trips made by Harriett Tubman or Sojourner Truth through slave states to convey slaves to freedom.

Of course there is no logical comparison, but there are some black leaders who attempt to make a connection and in their effort are failing black people when they cheapen their worth. This open support and advocacy for illegal alien rallies which demand more and more American resources, more boycotts, more walkouts… at the expense of far too many black Americans who struggle daily for jobs, decent education and housing is wrong… wrong… wrong!

Where are the courageous black leaders of a century ago such as Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Dubois, who urged American industry and businesses to turn to black American workers? Would those same leaders today be seeking support for illegal immigrant labor and their rights over those of black unemployed or young black adults looking for their first job, first home, first opportunity? Is that fair to any American whose forebears came to this country and worked legally to obtain a place in American society?

I have to ask Rev. Jesse Jackson about his defense of illegal aliens’ rights being put ahead of black Americans who have suffered racism for far too many generations.

Should the several hundred thousand who marched in Chicago on May 1st be given Rev. Jesse Jackson’s son’s seat in Congress seat because they were loud enough to be heard over the quiet cries of his constituents who have earned the civil right seat on the Freedom Bus? You have to wonder what Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. would say during these summer illegal immigration hearings should they come to Chicago’s south side.

In 25 years, while illegal aliens have been stealing across the border, black Americans have to be wondering over that same span of time just where are the entry-level jobs for them? Black Chicagoans have to be wondering, with far too many students leaving the public school system each year, should precious educational resources from Illinois or Washington be spent on millions of illegal alien students who by law should not be here, but because some political and black leaders’ fear of breaking a political correctness infraction, black and white American children may and will lose out on educational resources to help level the playing field of their own constituent’s achievement?

For 12 years I served as a board member in Wayne County, Michigan for one of the largest social service agencies in America. I can tell you right now that I can not think of a single black family who received much needed services in order to help keep their family’s body, soul and spirit together, would have or should have given up their essential financial supports, their job training and their educational benefits which would help get their family to get back on the right track toward raising their family up from poverty so that illegal aliens could benefit from their entitlements.

I’m sure these families on welfare have to be wondering just how much more should they take from an America that is willing to let millions of illegal aliens blackmail our nation, walk out on the country for a day and demand protections for their families, for their children that the illegal aliens’ own government back in Mexico should provide them… but gladly shows its legal citizens the “Yellow Brick Road” to our nation’s pocketbook.

Well black America, maybe its time for you to begin a nationwide “Walk In”.

If millions of illegal aliens can demonstrate on the backs of black Americans, push you out of line, and take the legacy of Rosa Park’s dramatic act of civil disobedience in sitting down for earned civil rights, then take a page from their book.

If millions of illegal aliens can walk out on America… Black Americans … Let’s “Walk IN” for our civil rights!

Let’s give our children and our families and our communities and our jobs and our veterans and our legacies a well-deserved “Walk In” and show all Americans what all citizens, and especially black American citizens of our nation can do.
No, this is not the nation that our true civil rights heroes struggled against racism, and against racial marginalism and against economic deprivation so that maybe, just maybe, in a generation or two their heirs would have an opportunity to succeed and inherit the fullness and richness of the American Dream only to be kicked off the bus and out of the line.

No, I don’t think there are black Americans who should stand and wait while millions of illegal aliens’ whose only struggle was to cross America’s border and take the birthright of black Americans and their ancestor’s civil rights legacy without a fight, without a comment and without a struggle. We must say no… not this time… not this way… and not to our people.

Black America send a wake up call to the millions of illegal aliens who want your place in line and leave you still trying to play by the rules. You will stand up and walk into the line. Walk into your civil rights and walk into your jobs, your schools, your hospitals, and your child’s scholarships and into your future. After 300 plus years of struggle, I think black America is entitled to its civil rights. Walk In and Stay In.
# # #

Kevin Fobbs is President of National Urban Policy Action Council (NuPac). View NuPac on the web at www.nupac.info. Kevin Fobbs is a regular contributing columnist to the Detroit News. He is also the host of The Kevin Fobbs Show -- see http://www.kevinfobbs.com/ . Write him at kevin@kevinfobbs.com .

How Can Obama Deliver Millions of 'GREEN COLLAR' Jobs If Most Windmill Manufacturing Jobs Will be Outsourced to China and India?

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:34:00 +0000

The following articles reflect an increasing trend towards the outsourcing of higher technology windmill component manufacturing jobs from America and Europe to China and India. Apparently, this is due to the relatively lower labor and manufacturing costs in the latter countries. It is also helped by the Chinese Government's recent introduction of targeted wind subsidies AND VAT and tariff rebates for wind turbines & components with 70% local content/production. Consequently, mostly lower skill assembly and/or installation jobs will be left for low-wage American workers. Since there are over 800 different components to a windmill, this is likely to involve a net loss of many high technology / high skill jobs.

As can be gleaned from the articles below, the evidence also reflects that large European wind companies have already begun to shutter their higher cost western European manufacturing facilities in favor of building /relocating new factories to Eastern Europe and China. In addition, European companies are entering into joint ventures and licensing arrangment with Chinese wind turbine and blade companies to manufacture in China their products at a fraction of the cost within Europe and even North America. Even U.S. wind companies license their designs and technologies (outsource production) to lower priced Chinese wind turbine, blade and other component manufacturers.

Although some European companies have announced plans to build windmill production facilities within the United States, many of these are likely to be only 'showcase' technology centers which satisfy no more than a fraction of the companies' total worldwide production needs.

[See: How Can Obama Deliver Millions of U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' Renewable Energy (Wind) Manufacturing Jobs If They Are Mostly Owned/Outsourced By/To Europe?, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security, at: http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-can-obama-deliver-millions-of-us.html ].

And, the economic viability of these factories is highly dependent on the receipt of state level tax abatements, credits and other economic incentives underwritten by local communities, not to mention, susceptible to market volatilities in the oil and natural gas markets, as well as, currency fluctuations. What would it take to unravel the U.S. investment commitments made by such European companies? At what oil/ natural gas price would windmill technology investments no longer make economic sense?

[See, e.g., Oil Price Slide Seen Battering Alternative Energy Stocks, CNNMoney.com (Sept. 10, 2008), at: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809102128DOWJONESDJONLINE000929_FORTUNE5.htm ].

Lastly, due to the growth in global demand for windpower, a severe shortage of wind turbines and blades has resulted. And, Chinese and Indian wind turbine and blade factories with excess capacity seem most capable of picking up the slack. In fact, industry analysts predict that China will become the world's largest producer of wind turbines as early as 2009. And at least two of the largest Chinese windmill companies plan to begin exporting wind turbines globally by 2009 AND 2010.

If wind turbine and other windmill component parts will largely be manufactured in China and/or India in the future, how can windmill manufacturing jobs be considered 'green collar jobs'?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.redherring.com/Home/24741

China to Subsidize Wind Turbines

by Justin Moresco

Red Herring – The Business of Technology

26 August 2008

The Chinese government said Friday it will subsidize wind power equipment makers as the country continues its drive to generate 15 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2020.

“This is quite significant,” said Caitlin Pollock, Asia wind energy analyst for Emerging Energy Research, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “It will spur further growth.”

The policy marks the first Chinese subsidy exclusively targeting wind power and highlights the Asian country’s increasing interest in wind as a major source of energy. The government has set an official target of 30 gigawatts of installed wind capacity by 2020.

Last year China had a total of 5.9 gigawatts of installed capacity, according to Emerging Energy Research. The research group expects the country will nearly double that figure this year to 11.1 gigawatts.

But the subsidy also continues China’s overarching policy of growing domestic manufacturing in parallel with overall renewable energy production. China wants to be greener, and it wants the transition to be led by local companies.

That’s why only Chinese majority-owned turbine manufactures that source blades and other components from majority locally owned suppliers will qualify for the subsidy. And the subsidized amount--$88 per kilowatt for the first 50 units generating 1.5 megawatts or more--can only be used for research and development purposes.

Although there are more than 40 wind turbine vendors in China today, most have opted to license technology from foreign companies. The [subsidy] policy is intended to reverse that trend, Pollock said.

And in the long run, the subsidy should help make Chinese wind companies more competitive with their foreign rivals, such as GE Energy of the U.S. and Danish Vestas Wind Systems.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Turbine-plant-closure-hits-Salmond39s.4397508.jp

Turbine Plant Closure Hits Salmond's Green Dreams

By Jenny Haworth

The Scotsman

Published Date: 16 August 2008

THE First Minister's plans for the nation to become the green capital of Europe were dealt a blow yesterday after a major wind turbine manufacturer announced plans to close its Scottish factory.

Vestas, which has its headquarters in Denmark, said it would be starting talks with its 91 employees about the future of its site in Campbeltown, Argyll, because it does not make enough money.

However, insiders say the factory has been dogged by problems from the start, particularly the lengthy planning process in Scotland that has led to a lack of stability in the turbine market.

Vestas made the announcement on the same day it revealed its orders for wind turbines, and its share price, had increased.

The decision comes just weeks after Alex Salmond gave the go-ahead for Europe's largest wind farm to be built in Scotland, as he expressed a desire for this country to become the green capital of Europe.

An industry insider said from the start the lengthy planning system brought difficulties for the factory."In 2002 there was an awful lot of confidence that the wind industry would be able to grow in Scotland quite significantly and quite quickly," he said. "That gave confidence for a lot of positive investment decisions at the time from people like Vestas. They were hoping the industry would have a regular throughput of planning decisions that would lead to orders."

However, he said the reality of the Scottish planning system – which has taken up to four years to make decisions about whether to give the go-ahead to wind farms – put an end to the initial optimism.

It is believed the factory has also struggled because it is not set up to build the larger turbines that are expected to be in high demand with the growth in offshore plants. It is thought Vestas was also at a disadvantage due to its remote location in Campbeltown that makes transportation of the turbine towers difficult.

Hugh Scullion, regional political officer for the union Unite Scotland, said he could not believe Vestas had made this decision at a time when the renewables industry was thriving.

He called for government intervention to make sure the manufacturing industry that builds turbines becomes established close to the wind farms, to make sure jobs are brought to the area.

Scotland's enterprise minister, Jim Mather, said he was seeking an urgent meeting with senior management at Vestas.

He added: "As a government, we are ready to do whatever we can to try and find a sustainable future for the yard."

In a statement Vestas said: "Evaluations have shown that the products for which the factory was designed and streamlined do not generate satisfactory earnings."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://energy.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/708256?UserKey=

Balance of manufacturing power is swinging in favour of Far East - China’s turbine firms prepare to storm global wind markets

Energy Press and Journal

Published: 07/07/2008

EXPLOSIVE growth in the demand for wind power has created a global waiting list for wind turbines, according to ClimateChangeCorp. It says Chinese turbine companies may be part of the solution as they ramp up production and get ready to export. And according to the Global Wind Energy Council (www.worldenergy.org), China will become the top wind turbine manufacturer by 2009.

To encourage domestic production, Bejing increased tariffs on imported wind turbines in May, 2008, while slashing import taxes on components.

The latter incentive, to help Chinese firms compete internationally for scarce parts, will put pressure on the industry in the rest of the world.

Even before the latest tariff increase, China was demanding that foreign companies manufacturing turbines on Chinese soil have at least 70% domestically produced components.

Goldwind, China’s largest wind turbine maker, raised $245million through an initial public offer (IPO) early this year to fund a huge expansion. LM Glassfiber of Denmark, which has a co-operation agreement with Goldwind, opened its second turbine blade factory in China in October last year.

ClimateChangeCorp says other major Chinese turbine makers – Sinovel, Windey, Dongfang, MingYang and HEC – are also expanding capacities and shopping for joint ventures and licensing agreements with global players.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/07/localising-chinese-wind-turbine.html

Localising Chinese Wind Turbine Manufacturing

Peak Energy

July 2008

Renewable Energy World has an interesting article on the slow and steady process of creation [of] an indigenous Chinese wind power industry – China's Wind Power Industry: Localizing Equipment Manufacturing

When 2007 ended, China's installed base of wind power totaled just over 6 gigawatts (GW), earning the country fifth place among the world's largest wind energy producers (after Germany, the U.S., Spain and India), up from sixth place in 2006. Wind power industry statistics show that by the end of 2008, China's total installed base of wind power production will have reached 10 GW; some experts are estimating that by 2010, the total installed capacity for wind power generation in China will reach 20 GW and that by 2020 China's installed base of wind power will total 100 GW (current global wind installation is 94 GW).

In 2007 an estimated 24 billion Yuan [approximately US $3.28 billion] was invested in China's wind energy sector. Not surprisingly, this level of investment has spawned an industry — local manufacturers are responding by producing the equipment and components that the wind energy industry requires to sustain this growth.

It is conservatively estimated that between 2006 and 2015, 100 billion Yuan [US $14.5 billion] will be spent on equipment and component purchases to further develop China's wind power industry. According to the Ministry of Commerce, by the end of 2006 there were more than 100 Chinese companies manufacturing equipment and components for the wind industry. ...

To help spur the development of an indigenous wind power equipment and components industry, Beijing has mandated that all new wind power projects have at least a 70% Chinese component. Wind power equipment manufacturers also now enjoy a 50% discount on value added taxes (VAT) payable in China.

On April 23, 2008 the Ministry of Finance announced two changes to import tariff regulations with respect to the wind power industry, further spurring development of Chinese wind power equipment manufacturing. The first change, effective January 1, 2008, implemented a tariff and VAT rebate program for imports of parts and raw materials used in the manufacture of wind turbines. This change was significant because a large percentage of parts and raw materials used in the manufacture of wind turbines still must be sourced from outside of China.

The second tariff change, effective May 1, 2008, eliminated the tariff-free importation of wind turbines less than 2.5 MW. This tariff change is a strong indicator that the Chinese wind turbine industry is maturing rapidly; as recently as late 2007 Chinese wind power equipment was incapable of producing megawatt-class wind turbines.

Megawatt-class turbines are increasingly produced domestically and the elimination of tariff-free imports of wind turbines less than 2.5 MW in size will give added impetus to the domestic production of increasingly large wind turbines.

The economics of the wind power equipment industry are quite favorable. At present the cost of construction of wind power in China is approximately 8000-9000 Yuan/Kw [US $1170-1315 /kw] and 60% to 70% of those costs are equipment purchases. ...

According to Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, by 2009 China will become the world's largest producer of wind turbines. At present China has at least 40 wind-power turbine manufacturers: 17 are state-owned or state-controlled companies, 12 are private Chinese companies, 7 are joint-venture companies and 4 are wholly foreign-owned companies.

Though China has yet to export wind turbines, China's two largest wind turbine manufacturers — Xinjiang Jinfeng (Goldwind, whose December 2007 initial public offering (IPO) was the first pure-play wind power equipment Chinese stock offering in the U.S.) and Sinovel — have plans to export in 2009 and 2010.

Many of the largest wind turbine and other equipment manufacturers have licensed technology from western companies, including from AMSC Windtec, REpower, Aerodyn, Vensys and Garrad Hassan. Most of the largest Chinese wind turbine manufacturers have begun to produce 1.5-MW wind turbines and gradually these Chinese wind turbine manufacturers, having purchased designs for 2-, 3- and 5-MW wind turbines, are developing prototypes of larger wind turbines.

[SO MUCH FOR U.S. WIND TURBINE & COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS HAVING A FIGHTING CHANCE TO COMPETE IN THIS BURGEONING MARKET].

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=53076

China's Wind Power Industry: Localizing Equipment Manufacturing

By Lou Schwartz and Ryan Hodum

Bejing, China [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

July 18, 2008

When 2007 ended, China's installed base of wind power totaled just over 6 gigawatts (GW), earning the country fifth place among the world's largest wind energy producers (after Germany, the U.S., Spain and India), up from sixth place in 2006.

Wind power industry statistics show that by the end of 2008, China's total installed base of wind power production will have reached 10 GW; some experts are estimating that by 2010, the total installed capacity for wind power generation in China will reach 20 GW and that by 2020 China's installed base of wind power will total 100 GW (current global wind installation is 94 GW).

In 2007 an estimated 24 billion Yuan [approximately US $3.28 billion] was invested in China's wind energy sector. Not surprisingly, this level of investment has spawned an industry — local manufacturers are responding by producing the equipment and components that the wind energy industry requires to sustain this growth.

It is conservatively estimated that between 2006 and 2015, 100 billion Yuan [US $14.5 billion] will be spent on equipment and component purchases to further develop China's wind power industry. According to the Ministry of Commerce, by the end of 2006 there were more than 100 Chinese companies manufacturing equipment and components for the wind industry.

Foreign wind power equipment manufacturers, including the most significant international wind turbine manufacturers,

Vestas, Suzlon, Gamesa, Nordex Corp., Honiton Energy Ltd. and GE Energy, have aggressively engaged this market. Though foreign wind turbine manufacturers' share of the market has declined from nearly 75% a few years ago to 55% now, the foreign presence in China's wind industry remains significant.

Foreign wind power equipment manufacturers have made strategic investments in China, allowing them to remain dominant even as indigenous Chinese wind equipment capabilities grow. At EU €60 million, Gamesa's factory in Tianjin, which manufactures wind turbines, is the Spanish company's second largest foreign investment (after the United States).

Also located in Tianjin is Vestas' Wind Turbine Equipment (China) Co. Ltd., which manufactures blades and does wind turbine assembly.

Nordex has located two of its three manufacturing centers in China and has established the company's Asia headquarters in Beijing. In the next three years, Nordex expects to invest an additional 500 million Yuan [approx. US $71 million ] to grow its business in China four-fold. GE Energy's Shenyang wind turbine plant produces 1.5-MW-class wind turbines.

Localization of Equipment Manufacturing

To help spur the development of an indigenous wind power equipment and components industry, Beijing has mandated that all new wind power projects have at least a 70% Chinese component. Wind power equipment manufacturers also now enjoy a 50% discount on value added taxes (VAT) payable in China.

On April 23, 2008 the Ministry of Finance announced two changes to import tariff regulations with respect to the wind power industry, further spurring development of Chinese wind power equipment manufacturing. The first change, effective January 1, 2008, implemented a tariff and VAT rebate program for imports of parts and raw materials used in the manufacture of wind turbines. This change was significant because a large percentage of parts and raw materials used in the manufacture of wind turbines still must be sourced from outside of China.

The second tariff change, effective May 1, 2008, eliminated the tariff-free importation of wind turbines less than 2.5 MW. This tariff change is a strong indicator that the Chinese wind turbine industry is maturing rapidly; as recently as late 2007 Chinese wind power equipment was incapable of producing megawatt-class wind turbines.

Megawatt-class turbines are increasingly produced domestically and the elimination of tariff-free imports of wind turbines less than 2.5 MW in size will give added impetus to the domestic production of increasingly large wind turbines.

The economics of the wind power equipment industry are quite favorable. At present the cost of construction of wind power in China is approximately 8000-9000 Yuan/Kw [US $1170-1315 /kw] and 60% to 70% of those costs are equipment purchases. Because many of the most important Chinese wind power equipment and components companies have grown out of large industrial companies (including several public companies), there appears to be sufficient financial strength for these companies to grow.

Funds to finance new wind power equipment and component manufacturing in China have come primarily in the form of commercial bank loans, retained earnings and equity investments.

Turbines

According to Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, by 2009 China will become the world's largest producer of wind turbines. At present China has at least 40 wind-power turbine manufacturers: 17 are state-owned or state-controlled companies, 12 are private Chinese companies, 7 are joint-venture companies and 4 are wholly foreign-owned companies.

Though China has yet to export wind turbines, China's two largest wind turbine manufacturers — Xinjiang Jinfeng (Goldwind, whose December 2007 initial public offering (IPO) was the first pure-play wind power equipment Chinese stock offering in the U.S.) and Sinovel — have plans to export in 2009 and 2010.

Many of the largest wind turbine and other equipment manufacturers have licensed technology from western companies, including from AMSC Windtec [AUSTRIA], REpower [GERMANY], Aerodyn [GERMANY], Vensys [GERMANY] and Garrad Hassan [UNITED KINGDOM]. Most of the largest Chinese wind turbine manufacturers have begun to produce 1.5-MW wind turbines and gradually these Chinese wind turbine manufacturers, having purchased designs for 2-, 3- and 5-MW wind turbines, are developing prototypes of larger wind turbines.

Bearings

The Chinese wind power industry continues to depend on imports for its supply of bearings. However, this dependence may be short lived. On December 11, 2007, the Timken Company entered into a joint venture agreement with the Xiangtan Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd. to manufacture ultra-large bore bearings for the main rotor shafts of megawatt-class wind turbines. The bearings will be manufactured in China with some of the bearing materials and components coming from the U.S. The new US $38 million plant, which will be located in Hunan Province, will begin construction in 2008. [Canton, Ohio-based] Timken will have an 80% interest in the new venture.

Blades

The largest wind turbine blades to be manufactured in China to date (measuring 40.25 meters long) are now being manufactured by the China Materials Science and Technology Wind Power Blades Joint Stock Co. Ltd., in Beijing. The "Sinoma 40.2" blades that the company produces are manufactured in conjunction with a German wind blade designer. Presently, China Materials has a demonstration production line capable of producing 10 sets of molds/year and 200 sets (600 blades) of Sinoma 40.2 blades/year. The company has agreements with wind turbine manufacturers and already has supplied 30 sets of blades, 5 of which are being installed in wind farms in China's Northeast. China Materials is currently developing 2.5-MW blades and anticipates eventually having five different sized blades by 2010.

The Shanghai Prime Machinery Company, whose shares are listed in Hong Kong, is another significant Chinese wind turbine blade manufacturer. Aerodyn has licensed its blade manufacturing technology to Canada's Hanwei Energy Services Corp. for the latter to produce 37.5-meter and 40.3-meter blades for 1.5-MW turbines.

Gearboxes

Comprising roughly 15% of total wind turbine cost, gearbox manufacturing is critical to China's localization of components and equipment. The gearbox converts between slowly rotating, high torque power from the wind turbine rotor and high speed, low torque power used for the generator.

China's largest manufacturer of gearboxes is China High Speed Transmission, which in 2007 captured nearly 80% of domestic market share. Last year, the company raised US $272 million through a Morgan Stanley-led IPO in Hong Kong and currently supplies gearboxes to both Goldwind and GE Energy.

The CEO of Germany's Nordex Corporation has noted China High Speed Transmission is one of only two companies in China able to produce gearboxes for the 1.5-MW turbine that Nordex produces. Although China High Speed Transmission only has a three percent global market share, it has major export plans for the near future. Tempering these ambitions will be increasing raw material costs, including steel prices that have nearly doubled from US $535 a ton in 2007 to over US $1,000 a ton in 2008.

Retail investors seeking to participate in China's wind-power boom can invest in the ETF "FAN" that was recently explained by Peter Lynch on REW.com. In addition to the well-known foreign companies that have a significant piece of the Chinese wind power industry, FAN includes a handful of publicly-traded Chinese companies whose revenues are derived (at least partially) from sales into the wind industry.

The Chinese components of FAN include Goldwind (turbines), Harbin Wind Power Equipment Co., Ltd., Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. (blades), China High Speed Transmission Equipment Group Co., Ltd. (wind transmission equipment and gearboxes), China Wind Systems, Inc. (forged rolled rings) and China WindPower Group Limited.

-----------------------

Lou Schwartz is president of China Strategies LLC, and publisher of the China Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development Report and the China Aluminum Industry Report. He has degrees in East Asian Studies from the University of Michigan and Harvard University where he studied Chinese language and literature, economics and law, among other disciplines. Lou also earned a J.D. from George Washington University Law School.

Ryan Hodum is an environmental and renewable energy professional who recently earned a Master of Arts in Global Environmental Policy from American University in Washington, D.C. with a focus on renewable energy utilization in China. He now works for David Gardiner & Associates LLC, a strategic consulting firm focused on climate and energy solutions. Ryan spearheaded the development of China Strategies' China Renewable Energy Interactive Map and the China Solar Map, which can be found on China Strategies' website.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/30/headwind-asian-wind-power-upstarts-stumble/

Headwind: Asian Wind-Power Upstarts Stumble

By Tom Wright

Environmental Capital/ Wall Street Journal

June 30, 2008

Wind power is supposed to be the clean-energy panacea, if only the world can get enough turbines. Waiting lists in the U.S. are now stretching into 2010. China and India are eager to fill the void in the world’s windmill market—as they did with everything from cheap footwear to IT. But as the trials and tribulations at India’s Suzlon Energy show, it isn’t that easy.

Earlier this year, Suzlon had to recall almost all the wind-turbine blades it sold in the U.S., after some cracks appeared in Suzlon machines. Now, as we reported in the WSJ, Suzlon’s problems are multiplying.

Suzlon was so eager to crack the U.S. market, it rushed out new prototypes without proper testing on the U.S. grid, which is different than India’s. The result? The big, 2.1 megawatt turbines haven’t performed up to snuff as stipulated in Suzlon’s contracts—and leaves the company on the hook for financial penalties.

Suzlon’s travails could hold lessons for other developing-world wind companies hoping to strike gold in the U.S., the fastest-growing wind-power market in the world. While China’s Sinovel and Gold Wind have enough on their plate for now with China’s own outsized clean-energy ambitions—the country just moved up another wind-power target—the ultimate goal is to become export kings, like global leaders Vestas, Gamesa, and General Electric.

But wind power is a technology game. Cheaper labor gave Suzlon and Chinese makers an early leg up, and helped Suzlon sieze 8% of the U.S. market. The trick now, when costs for everybody’s turbines is on the increase thanks to pricier components, is how to hang on to existing customers while doubling output to satisfy new ones.

Some are already worried: Edison Mission Energy in the U.S. cancelled a 150-turbine order from Suzlon until the blade issue is sorted. Chinese makers have barely started exporting.

Tech glitches have plagued every turbine maker at one time or another. The big difference? Vestas, Nordex, and other European manufacturers worked through their technology glitches decades ago, when wind power was still a fringe energy off the world’s radar screens. Suzlon and Chinese newcomers angling for a piece of the pie face a much steeper learning curve—with the stakes suddenly a lot higher.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.allroadsleadtochina.com/index.php/2008/07/24/tianjin-investment-newsletter-june-24-2008/

CHINA’S BIGGEST WIND SYSTEM MANUFACTURING CENTER EMERGES IN TEDA

Tianjin Investment Newsletter

June 24, 2008

Recently Vestas held an earth breaking ceremony for its controller plant in TEDA West, the third time for the Danish giant in this industrial wonderland of North China. Since September, 2005, Vestas Wind Systems (China) Co., Ltd. has successively built and launched its blade plant, nacelle plant and generator plant. The new controller facility will make it possible for TEDA West to supply complete wind systems. So far, Vestas and TEDA have jointly hammered out China’s biggest wind system manufacturing base.

Ulrik Christensen, the Danish general manager of the controller plant, said that the establishment of the new facility is part of a long-term investment to meet the massive growth within the wind turbine industry and plays an important role in Vestas’global production footprint. The 15,000-square-meter new facility will focus on the production of control panels to supply the big Vestas family. (Tr. by Zhang Shanshan)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/wind-turbine-blades-big-and-getting-bigger.aspx

WIND TURBINE BLADES: BIG AND GETTING BIGGER

By Chris Red

Composites World

6/1/2008

"[O]ver the next 10 years there could be enough business to support the construction of perhaps 70 to 80 new wind turbine blade factories. These new plant estimates do not account for the inevitable closure of a few older blade manufacturing facilities and equivalent capacity to replace that production elsewhere.

Since 2000, at least five older European facilities (each specializing in sub-1.0-MW turbine blades) have been shuttered. Undoubtedly there will be others as blade manufacturing continues to globalize.

We anticipate that nearly three-quarters of this new capacity will need to be placed into service in the second half of the 2008 to 2017 time frame. The logistical difficulty involved in transporting these large blades from factory to wind farm will dictate that factories be local to demand. Therefore, about two-thirds of the new blade factories that will come online over the next 10 years are likely to be built in the developing markets across Asia — especially in India and China — and, to a lesser extent, in South and Latin America. Only about 32 percent of the new blade manufacturing capacity will be built in regions currently in the vanguard of wind energy development: 20 percent of the new capacity is expected to be located in Europe, and North America will see the remaining 12 percent of the capacity expansions."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.windaction.org/news/15372

Turbulence Ahead: India Windmill Empire Begins to Show Cracks

By Tom Wright

Wall Street Journal

April 18, 2008

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in February, Edison Mission Energy, a unit of Edison International, said the 144-foot-long windmill blades it recently bought from Suzlon have begun to split at three wind-power sites it operates in the Midwest. Suzlon has recalled 1,251 blades from its top-of-the-line turbines, which represent the majority of blades the company has sold to date in the U.S..

Its troubles don't end there. A year ago, the company bought a controlling stake in a large German turbine manufacturer, REpower Systems AG, in one of India's biggest overseas acquisitions. ...Now, Suzlon can't get its hands on the blueprints. Hamstrung by a German corporate law, Suzlon must offer to buy out minority shareholders before it can demand REpower's designs. It's unlikely that the company could make a tender offer until 2009, say people with knowledge of the companies...Mr. Kher blamed the cracks on the Midwest's unexpectedly violent changes in wind direction. Though Mr. Tanti says that only 45 blades have cracked, Suzlon says it will add an extra lamination layer to almost all of the blades it has shipped to the U.S. To repair cracked blades and reinforce the rest, the company expects to spend $30 million.

After harnessing the breezes to build a $7 billion family fortune, Indian windmill magnate Tulsi Tanti is encountering heavy turbulence.

A bit more than a decade ago, Mr. Tanti sold his family's struggling yarn-making business and scraped together about a half-million dollars to start a new company.

Defying industry incumbents who dismissed him as a dreamer, he started building wind-powered turbines.

With lobbying, heavy borrowing and good timing, he turned Suzlon Energy Ltd. into the world's fifth-largest windmill maker. Suzlon does roughly $1.8 billion in sales a year and has captured 8% of the U.S. market. Mr. Tanti ranks among the world's richest green-power moguls.

Maintaining his perch will be a challenge. In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in February, Edison Mission Energy, a unit of Edison International, said the 144-foot-long windmill blades it recently bought from Suzlon have begun to split at three wind-power sites it operates in the Midwest. Suzlon has recalled 1,251 blades from its top-of-the-line turbines, which represent the majority of blades the company has sold to date in the U.S..

Its troubles don't end there. A year ago, the company bought a controlling stake in a large German turbine manufacturer, REpower Systems AG, in one of India's biggest overseas acquisitions. REpower's technology could improve Suzlon's current product line. The German company has also developed some of the industry's biggest turbines, which could help turn Suzlon into a wind-power front-runner.

Now, Suzlon can't get its hands on the blueprints. Hamstrung by a German corporate law, Suzlon must offer to buy out minority shareholders before it can demand REpower's designs. It's unlikely that the company could make a tender offer until 2009, say people with knowledge of the companies.

Mr. Tanti, a 50-year-old with a narrow moustache and slicked-down hair, plays down the concerns. In an interview, he demonstrates a bold confidence in the technology that has propelled Suzlon this far, and bristles at questions about its challenges.

Four-Year Plan

"There are no companies growing the way we are growing. Within four years we will feed product technology to the whole world," says Mr. Tanti, the company's chairman and managing director. Suzlon remains on track to double its annual production capacity by 2010, he says. The cracked-blade problem, he says, doesn't stem from any fundamental design flaw. He declines to comment on ownership issues at REpower.

Suzlon's rapid rise reflects the advantages that developing-world companies have in some booming new sectors -- as well as the trouble they may have staying on top. Mr. Tanti kick-started his company in the late 1990s in part by lobbying a local government for a friendly tax regime. In 2005, he tapped an international appetite for investments in emerging markets and renewable energy to raise capital for an aggressive expansion. He used India's cheap labor costs to undercut the prices of established rivals abroad.

Now, to grow further, Suzlon must compete with the likes of Denmark's Vestas A/S, the world's largest windmill producer, and General Electric Co. Established wind-power companies are loath to license their latest technology to third-world manufacturers.

Instead, they've typically opted to set up joint ventures abroad that don't involve technology transfer.

Polyester Yarn

Mr. Tanti was born in Rajkot, an industrial town in the northwestern Indian state of Gujarat. After studying commerce and mechanical engineering in the 1970s, he went to work for his family's cold-storage business.

In the early 1980s, Mr. Tanti and his three brothers moved to Surat, a textile center in Gujarat, and set up a company to make polyester yarn for saris and dresses. The company's name, Suzlon, combined the Gujarati word for intelligence and the English word loan.

Suzlon struggled. One big problem, Mr. Tanti says, was electricity. India grants agricultural users in some states subsidized or free power, leaving industrial users to bear some of the world's highest electricity costs. Even so, supply is erratic.

So Mr. Tanti decided to power his factory with windmills. In 1994, he bought two small turbines from Vestas.

But wind power, too, was a headache. Big Western makers weren't installing and servicing the equipment they sold, making maintenance a chore. Mr. Tanti saw an opening: He could build windmills and operate wind farms for Indian factories, which were growing following the country's 1991 economic reforms. "Always the ideas come when you are under pressure," he says.

In 1995, he and his brothers raised $600,000 by selling some family property and set up Suzlon Energy Ltd. near Mumbai.

Mr. Tanti had to build from scratch a company that could compete in a highly technical industry. Wind turbines are complicated mechanisms with thousands of parts. Their immense blades must be engineered to catch wind efficiently but avoid breaking in high gusts.

Suzlon mined troubled European makers for talent and designs. It struck a deal with a small German producer, Südwind Energy GmbH, to sell its turbines in India. When Südwind went bust in the late 1990s, Suzlon hired its engineers and set up a turbine research and development center in Germany. Around the same time, Suzlon bought AE-Rotor Techniek BV, a bankrupt Dutch company, to design its blades.

'Tremendous Lobbying'

Mr. Tanti pressed government officials in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra state, to support the fledgling wind-power industry. In 1999, Maharashtra instituted a generous tax break that let companies deduct windmill costs against their sales-tax bill.

"There was tremendous lobbying from the industry," said G.M. Pillai, former head of the Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, the state body that sets policy for renewable energy. "Suzlon was a mover."

Mr. Tanti sold his turbines to big Indian companies, including motorcycle maker Bajaj Auto Ltd. Its chairman, Rahul Bajaj, says he was impressed by Mr. Tanti's business model. But had it not been for the tax break, he says, "I am not sure whether we would have gone ahead."

Suzlon's sales multiplied, reaching $131 million in the company's fiscal year ending 2002, up from $32 million in 2000. But the tax break caused an outcry in the local media, because it effectively reduced the flow of money into public coffers. The state repealed it in 2002, Mr. Pillai says.

Mr. Tanti looked for opportunity abroad. In the U.S., where tax credits boosted wind-power demand, producers were behind on turbine orders. In 2003, Suzlon sealed its first U.S. deal, selling two dozen 1-megawatt turbines -- each capable of powering about 650 U.S. households -- to a Minnesota developer.

Foreign investors were drawn to Suzlon, which offered exposure to both India's booming stock market and the promising renewable-energy sector. In 2004, Citigroup's Citibank took a 9% stake in the company for $22 million.

Citibank's $1 Billion

When global stocks sagged later that year, Citibank worried that Suzlon was taking on risky levels of debt to ramp up production, says Ajay Relan, who heads Citibank's private-equity business in India. He recalls suggesting that Mr. Tanti sell Suzlon to a rival. Mr. Tanti countered that within a few years, Suzlon would be buying the leading European companies, Mr. Relan recalls.

By 2005, foreign money was pouring into India's stock market. Suzlon was meeting sales targets and, because of low manufacturing costs, had profit margins of more than 20%, compared with the industry average of 8%. Later that year, Suzlon raised $340 million in an initial public offering. Citibank sold a majority of its stake in the IPO, and expects to make a $1 billion profit in all from its Suzlon investment.

Mr. Tanti became one of India's richest people overnight. The extended Tanti family owns about 66% of the company, worth about $11 billion at the stock's height earlier this year and more than $7 billion currently. Mr. Tanti owns about 16% of Suzlon, according to the Mumbai Stock Exchange.

Flush with IPO funds, Mr. Tanti moved to buy international component makers. Foreign bankers lined up to lend. Borrowing from Barclays and Deutsche Bank, Suzlon bought Belgian gearbox maker Hansen Transmissions International NV, for $565 million, in 2006. The same year, it set up a factory in Tianjin, China.

To compete in developed markets, Suzlon needed bigger and more efficient turbines than those it had sold in India. Its German R&D center designed the company's biggest model yet, a 2.1-megawatt turbine. Its blades, measuring nearly 50 yards from hub to tip, were the company's most technically demanding to date.

Suzlon's main factory is in the former French enclave of Pondicherry, on India's southeast coast. Executives ride golf buggies between open hangars on the massive palm-tree-dotted site, where some 1,200 employees assemble turbines and mold, sand and paint the giant fiberglass blades. Suzlon also built a plant in Pipestone, Minn., to manufacture blades closer to its key U.S. market.

[IS THIS PLANT ON-LINE YET?? HOW MANY U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' MANUFACTURING JOBS??]

Edison Mission of Irvine, Calif., placed its first orders for Suzlon's 2.1-megawatt turbines in early 2006. Spokesman Douglas McFarlan says Edison Mission was attracted by Suzlon's record in Asia and "attractive" pricing. Suzlon's turbines cost about $1.5 million per megawatt, about 20% less than U.S. and European models, industry experts say.

To date, Edison has signed agreements for enough turbines to generate 1,000 megawatts, making it Suzlon's largest global customer.

Soon after operations began, blades began splitting, Edison said in its February SEC filing. The company says blade problems may delay new wind-power projects it has under development. Deere & Co., another big U.S. customer, has also seen some of its blades crack, says Suzlon spokesman Vivek Kher. A Deere spokesman declined to comment.

Violent Weather

Mr. Kher blamed the cracks on the Midwest's unexpectedly violent changes in wind direction. Though Mr. Tanti says that only 45 blades have cracked, Suzlon says it will add an extra lamination layer to almost all of the blades it has shipped to the U.S. To repair cracked blades and reinforce the rest, the company expects to spend $30 million.

[IF THE BLADES ARE SHIPPED TO THE U.S., THEN WHAT IS IT MANUFACTURING, IF ANYTHING, IN ITS U.S. FACTORY??]

Its eventual cost may be much higher. In its SEC filing, Edison Mission says its contract with Suzlon entitles it to seek compensation for business lost while turbines are down. It says it may also seek compensation for delays in starting new wind-power projects.

Suzlon has been aware for a year and a half that its technology is "not world-class," says Ashish Dhawan, senior managing director of ChrysCapital, an Indian private-equity firm that invested in Suzlon before the IPO. ChrysCapital has sold its stake but Mr. Dhawan remains an independent director on Suzlon's board. "It's not that their technology is bad," he says. "But they've been a laggard."

Mr. Tanti has sought to close the gap. Last May, Suzlon agreed to take over struggling German turbine manufacturer REpower, which has developed some of the industry's most advanced wind technology. Its 5-megawatt turbines, among the world's largest, sit offshore to catch stronger sea gusts.

The deal, valued at $1.7 billion, calls for Suzlon to take over REpower in stages over two years, in part by buying large stakes currently held by two European shareholders, French state-controlled nuclear-engineering company Areva SA and Martifer SA of Portugal.

The two shareholders have granted Suzlon the right to vote their shares, giving the Indian company 86.5% of REpower's voting rights. But Suzlon's current ownership stake comes to just 33.6%. By German law, minority owners such as Suzlon are deemed competitors. REpower is under no obligation to transfer its technology until Suzlon is able to complete a so-called "domination agreement" that requires, among other things, that Suzlon also offer to buy out minority shareholders who control 13.5% of REpower's shares.

Shuttle to Hamburg

Suzlon's challenge, say analysts and people familiar with the company, will be to fund its latest aggressive expansion plans and its buyout of REpower's large shareholders, as well as raise funds to compensate minority shareholders.

Meanwhile, according to those familiar with the company, a frustrated Mr. Tanti and his top executives have shuttled to REpower's Hamburg headquarters repeatedly in recent months, trying to persuade REpower to license its technology to Suzlon. In late January, the vice president of Suzlon's Netherlands-based design unit asked REpower for the blueprints for two of its blades, according to an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Mindful of exposing itself to complaints by minority shareholders, REpower has declined Suzlon's requests. "We're not sure we want to give [the technical know-how] to a competitor," said Thomas Schnorrenberg, a REpower spokesman.

Mr. Tanti says he's managing REpower at arm's length and that there's nothing wrong with seeking licenses for its technologies.

In spite of the headwind, Suzlon's sales have continued to grow. Its unconsolidated revenue in the last quarter of 2007 totaled $410 million, up 50% from the year before.

But Suzlon's shares, listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, have fallen 34% since its early January high, compared with a 21% fall in the market's benchmark Sensex index during the same period.

Mr. Dhawan, the board member, says it's unclear how Mr. Tanti's aggressive expansion and ambition will play out. "There's a risk with Tanti," he said. "It's going to be a huge success -- or it's going to blow up."

Write to Tom Wright at tom.wright@wsj.com

Web link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120846287761023921.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601089&sid=a6x.LjxlExh0&refer=china

Vestas Aims to Reclaim Wind-Turbine Share Lost to China Rivals

By Lee Spears

April 10, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the world's largest wind-turbine maker, said it will reclaim market share lost to Chinese competitors with the help of new factories in North America, Europe and Asia.

The company aims to grab 25 percent of the global market, up from 23 percent last year, Chief Executive Officer Ditlev Engel said in an interview in Beijing today. The Randers, Denmark-based company's share was 28 percent in 2006.

Vestas' shipments in Asia fell by almost 6 percent last year, as Chinese rivals including Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co. expanded production. The company plans to almost double investments to 620 million euros ($982 million) this year to start production at four factories in the U.S. and Europe and at three plants in China in 2009.

``Our market share went down mainly because we had a number of new players coming on stream in China,'' said Engel, 43. ``We went as fast as we could.''

Vestas aims to book revenue of 5.7 billion euros this year, a threefold increase from 1.88 billion euros in 2007, Engel said, reiterating an earlier company forecast. The company's 2007 sales gained 21 percent in China, a market that more than doubled in the year, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.

Wind-turbine equipment sales amounted to 25 billion euros ($40 billion) last year, according to the Brussels-based council.

Vestas shares fell 1 percent to 507 kroner in Copenhagen yesterday.

More Turbines

Vestas plans to have global production capacity of 10,000 megawatts in 2010, he said. He declined to provide the company's current capacity or give projections.

The company is also expanding in China to guard against losses from a weakening U.S. dollar, he said.

``One of the reasons we're developing the supply chain in China is to get a better natural hedge on our currency spread,'' Engel said. “The drop of the dollar is a challenge for Vestas, particularly because we have about half of our business in Europe and the rest in Asia and North America.”

China may become the world's leading market for wind-power generation within three to five years, Engel said on Sept. 21. The country, the world's biggest energy consumer after the U.S., last year more than doubled its wind-power generation capacity to 5,600 megawatts, Shi Pengfei, vice-president of government-owned China Wind Energy Association, said on Jan. 16.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lee Spears in Beijing at lspears2@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: April 10, 2008 05:21 EDT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ec21.com/ec-market/wind_turbines.html

Location
China (480)
Korea (23)
USA (9)
India (6)
Australia (3)
United Kingdom (2)
Japan (1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

In the Texas panhandle, just north of Sweetwater, is the town of Pampa, where T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Power is currently building the largest wind farm in the world. In addition to creating new construction and maintenance jobs, thousands of Americans will be employed to manufacture the turbines and blades. These are high skill jobs that pay on a scale comparable to aerospace jobs.

[REALLY???? HOW WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE IF MOST OF THE WORLDS TURBINE & BLADE PRODUCTION IS SOURCED IN CHINA, INDIA AND EUROPE???]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/01/13/ni_hao_and_yi_huir_jian?blog=94

Very clever, these Chinese

01/13/08 · 9:30 am :: posted by CCToday Link to Post Email to a Friend

'Ni hao !' That's Chinese for 'Hi there !'

It's not a 'developing' country any more

By Richard C. Bartlett

...They are leaping into the wind turbine parade of nations. Google offers 1,860,000 entries for 'China wind power ! They have the potential for 1,000,000+ megawatts of production, 1/4 of it on land, 3/4 of it offshore. Lin Yuan, head of the Zhangbei county energy department says the only problem is they can't get turbines to buy fast enough.

To satisfy that appetite for turbines GE has contracted to spend $50 million on research and manufacturing facilities. Spain's ENH has signed on for a $31 million plant to construct turbines. The Danish firm Vesta is spending $30 million on a turbine blade factory. Shares of Xinjiang Goldwind Science and Technology Co. soared 234% on their first day on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.lmglasfiber.com/Download/Image%20Archive/Windmills.aspx

LM Glasfiber - Blades and wind turbines

Progress in this industry is heading towards larger wind turbines with longer blades – and wind energy is thus able to provide electricity at lower and lower prices.

The world’s leading supplier of wind turbine blades

LM Glasfiber [Denmark] has produced a total of more than 105,500 wind turbine blades since 1978. This amounts to more than one in three of all the blades in operation today, worldwide.

More about global blade production

Rotor blades produced by one of LM Glasfiber’s Spanish factories in the storage area in front of the plant at Ponferrada.

Download photos of our factories in the USA, Canada, India, China, Spain and Denmark from the picture archive. ...LM Glasfiber has been producing rotor blades in Tianjin since 2001 and in Urumqi as of mid 2007.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HXI/is_2007_Oct_31/ai_n25014116

Danish wind turbine blades manufacturer LM Glasfiber A/S opens new factory in India

Nordic Business Report,

Oct 31, 2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.investindk.com/visNyhed.asp?artikelID=18340

LM Glasfiber opens a second wind turbine blade plant in China

(2007.10.12)

The Danish wind turbine blade manufacturer opens a new facility in Urumqi, Xinjiang province, where China's leading wind turbine manufacturer Goldwind is based. Danish wind turbine blade manufacturer LM Glasfiber announced in a press release yesterday that it has reached another milestone in its global plan to expand capacity, with the official opening of a new blade factory in Urumqi, Xinjiang province. The facility, which according to the company will produce around 500 blades annually, is LM Glasfiber’s second blade manufacturing plant in China. The modular layout of the factory makes it easy to upgrade capacity in response to the expected rapid growth on the Chinese market.

As reported on this website earlier in the year, LM Glasfiber has entered a strategic cooperation agreement with China's leading wind turbine manufacturer Goldwind, which is also based in Urumqi. Xinjiang province has some of the best wind energy resources in China and is the location of China's biggest wind farm to date.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5344

Who'll solve the wind turbine supply crisis?

Explosive growth in the demand for wind power has created a global waiting list for wind turbines. Chinese turbine companies may be part of the solution as they ramp up production and get ready to export.

...Zhang Guobao, vice president of China’s NDRC, says: “We are planning several measures to support the wind power industry including localisation of equipment production.” According to the Global Wind Energy Council (www.worldenergy.org), China will become the top wind turbine manufacturer by 2009.

To encourage production, China increased tariffs on imported wind turbines in May, while slashing import taxes on components.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/20/news/international/china_wind/index.htm

Wind power blows through China

The central government's heavy hand helps spark opportunities for Chinese and international players to green up the coal-fired country.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

February 26 2007: 10:25 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- China, known worldwide for its smog-choked cities and rising status as global-superpolluter, may be cleaning up its act.

The country that has let coal-belching power plants fuel its economic miracle is now eyeing a cleaner, more benign form of electricity: wind power.

'[The wind-power business] is going gangbusters,' said Greg Yurek, chief executive of American Superconductor, a company with $51 million in 2006 sales that, among other things, licenses wind turbine designs to Chinese firms. 'They need electricity, and wind is a nice way to do it.'

U.S. companies in the wind-power business, along with their foreign counterparts, could stand to gain as they license wind-turbine designs and construct windmills in China for the domestic market.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://blueskieschina.com/mambo/content/view/120/84

Alstom plans global turbine production base in China

Written by James Ockenden

BlueSkiesChina.com

Jun 11, 2006 at 12:00 AM

BEIJING, June 11 -- French power and transportation equipment maker Alstom plans to set up a global production base in China, according to Xinhua's Shanghai Securities News.

The newspaper quoted Alstom China president Alain Berger as saying that the production base will manufacture mainly turbine power generating equipment, which will be exported. He did not give details.

He said that Alstom will consider, as a next step, increasing its share of the market for thermal power generating equipment.

Alstom has 24% of the China market for hydroelectric equipment and 50% of the market for nuclear power generating equipment.

"Alstom's market share in China's thermal power markets was much lower than that in the other two markets," Berger was quoted as saying.

And according to Xinhua, a RMB240 million (US$30.7 million) joint venture between Alstom (China) Investment Co and Beijing Heavy Electric Machinery Works began operations in Beijing on Friday.

Alstom has 60% of the joint venture, called Alstom Beizhong Power (Beijing) Co, which is manufacturing six 600MW steam turbines and generators for the Pingwei, Dabieshan and Longshan power plants in China. The products are planned to be delivered between 2006 and 2007.

Alstom entered the joint venture in 2004, saying at the time it hoped to increase its China revenues to US$1 billion (RMB7.8 billion) by 2006. Alstom's overall group sales to Asia in 2005 were EUR2.1 billion (RMB21.6 billion) in the first nine months of its 2005/2006 financial reporting year.

Alstom enjoys the reputation as the largest power generation supplier to the Three Gorges Project - the company provides advanced technology and equipment to altogether 16 turbine generator units among the total of 26 units.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3931

Made in China, or Made by China? Chinese Wind Turbine Manufacturers Struggle to Enter Own Market

by Yingling Liu

May 19, 2006

World Watch Institute

China, a country with one of the world’s largest wind energy potentials, has seen tremendous growth in its wind power development in recent years. Yet Chinese manufacturers are still struggling to break into their own nation’s lucrative wind turbine industry. In 2005, domestic companies accounted for only 23 percent of China’s cumulative installed turbine market. The remainder of the production was dominated by foreign wind turbine giants, including Spain’s Gamesa, Denmark’s Vestas, and Germany’s Nordex.

Since the 1990s, major European turbine manufacturers have gradually gobbled up the Chinese market with the support of low-interest loans and incentives from their governments. The sudden rise in market demand in the past three years, however, has served as a wake-up call for domestic producers, who have discovered that they lag far behind their European counterparts in both technology and scale.

The typical mainstream Chinese wind turbine has a capacity of 750 kilowatts (kW), while most European products generate more than 2,000 kW. (In 2005, REpower of Germany installed an experimental 5,000 kW turbine, currently the world’s largest, at a wind farm in Germany.) Additionally, most Chinese turbines use an older “fixed pitch, constant speed” control system, compared with the more sophisticated international “variable pitch, variable speed” system.

Super-heated wind energy development in China has driven up turbine demand. As of late 2005, the country was home to 1,864 turbines, with a cumulative capacity of nearly 1,270 megawatts (MW), distributed among 61 wind farms in 15 provinces and regions. Last year alone, 592 wind turbines, capable of generating approximately 500 MW in total, were newly installed, reflecting a 254-percent growth in newly installed capacity over 2004. Demand will continue to skyrocket as the government works to meet its ambitious target of 30 gigawatts of cumulative installed turbine capacity by 2020.

The Chinese turbine industry is playing much-needed catch-up. Due to insufficient knowledge and investment and inconsistent government support, domestic turbine manufacturers have been pervasively weak in research and development. A common method for acquiring technology in recent years has been to purchase production licenses from foreign counterparts, even though most of the more accessible technologies are outdated. “This is a dead end. Most of the technology is already 10 to 15 years old,” says Wang Wenqi, a senior expert in the wind industry and the former general manager of Xinjiang Tianfeng, China’s biggest wind energy company. “Turbine technology is being developed so fast. We would never catch up in this way.”

Another way for China to acquire technology is to set up joint ventures with international wind turbine giants. This is unlikely to happen, however, due to foreign concerns about nurturing the potential competition. In the 1990s, in a push to enter Spain’s market, Vestas of Denmark formed its first joint venture with the local electric company, Gamesa. After several years, the companies split, and Gamesa and Vestas have since become major global competitors.

The more feasible alternative, says Wang, is to cooperate directly with foreign turbine designers, rather than with the large manufacturers. L’Aerodyn, an independent German company that designs turbines for medium- and small-scale European producers, recently collaborated with four leading Chinese electrical equipment makers. This is a far more practical arrangement, according to Wang: “The cost of design is only one-third of license purchase. Through joint design, we get the core technology, and we own the intellectual property rights.”

GoldWind, China’s largest domestic turbine manufacturer, has also chosen this route. It began working with a German design company as early as 2001, and in 2005 GoldWind accounted for nearly 90 percent of the increased domestic share in the Chinese turbine market. The manufacturer has already tested its own 1,200 kW turbine and is currently designing a 1,500 kW variable pitch model.

Experts believe the key for domestic producers is to build up their own innovation capacity. “Without your own R&D capability, you will not know what technologies you should bring in, and you will not know how to digest them even if you have brought them in, let alone make innovations based on them,” explains He Dexin, president of the Chinese Wind Energy Association. He believes domestic manufacturers should stop trying to obtain core technology from overseas. “Core technology can only be generated through self-innovation efforts,” he contends.

The Chinese government is likely to provide at least some financial support to local producers. Ren Dongming, Deputy Director of the Renewable Energy Development Center of the Energy Research Institute at the National Development Reform Commission, says his organization has already submitted a Public Benefits Fund (PBF) proposal to the Ministry of Finance. As with the similar System Benefits Funds that exist in some U.S. states, the PBF is designed to fund certain “public benefits” that are generally not accounted for in electricity markets. “The fund will be used to support research and development of renewable energy and assist renewable energy companies with subsidized loans and the like,” Ren explains. The proposal is likely to be approved in the near term.

The maturation of China’s domestic wind turbine industry is having an immediate effect on turbine prices, even though most Chinese products are currently aimed at the local market. The cost of imported wind turbines is roughly 10,000 RMB (US$1,200) per kilowatt, while the domestic equivalent is about one-third less. Since turbines account for 60–70 percent of overall expenses for wind energy developers, embracing the cheaper Chinese alternatives will instantly reduce costs. As the quality of the Chinese turbines improves, analysts have reason to be optimistic about increased domestic production and the positive impact on world turbine prices more generally.

How Can Obama Deliver Millions of U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' Renewable Energy (Wind) Manufacturing Jobs If They Are Mostly Owned/Outsourced By/To Europe?

noreply@blogger.com (ITSSD Charitable Mission) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:34:00 +0000

The following series of articles clearly reflect how difficult it will be for Barack Obama and the Blue Party to MEET THEIR PLEDGE to create "5 million new American 'Green Collar Jobs'" in exchange for securing Americans' trust, support and VOTES this coming November 2008. HOW CAN THEY DELIVER ON THIS PLEDGE to American union & inner city workers where European companies are steadily acquiring US energy companies and public utilities and are already outsourcing the bulk of wind turbine manufacturing (manual labor) jobs to European factories located in Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Poland? If it is universally agreed that 'Green Collar' (manual labor) jobs, by definition, include RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCT (e.g., WINDMILL) MANUFACTURING JOBS THAT CANNOT BE 'OUTSOURCED' or 'OFF-SHORED', then isn't such a PLEDGE NOTHING MORE THAN 'EMPTY WORDS' - 'HOT AIR'?? Or are renewable energy (windmill) manufacturing jobs NOT really included within the definition of 'GREEN COLLAR' jobs because politicians CANNOT ENSURE THAT SUCH JOBS WON'T BE OUTSOURCED/OFF-SHORED??? WHY WON'T OBAMA ACKNOWLEDGE THIS TRUTH? AREN'T EUROPEAN COMPANIES CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF SYSTEMATICALLY AQUIRING U.S. WIND ENERGY COMPANIES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES IN AN EFFORT TO GAIN U.S. MARKET SHARE THAT PRACTICALLY VESTS THEM WITH CONTROL BOTH OF THE GENERATION & THE DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY WITHIN CERTAIN U.S. REGIONS?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

["At their best, green-collar jobs offer living wages and upward mobility in growth industries. And most of these jobs simply cannot be outsourced to other countries. The reason is simple: the solar panels and wind farms must be constructed [/ASSEMBLED & INSTALLED] here in the United States, not overseas. And the millions and millions of buildings that need to be retrofitted to save more energy cannot be shipped over to China. They all must be weatherized where they stand -- right here in the United States. Therefore, green-collar jobs can provide secure employment for U.S. workers." See: Van Jones, "Green Jobs Act of 2007 - Pelosi's plan to save the polar bears -- and poor kids, too ...", Gristmill (Aug. 2, 2007) at: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/1/152944/9157 ].

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/nyregion/04power.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Deal to Double Wind Power in the State

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

New York Times

September 4, 2008

ALBANY — State regulators approved a deal on Wednesday that will allow the construction of [ASSEMBLY & INSTALLATION] hundreds of new wind turbines in New York, doubling the amount of wind power capacity within a few years.

[BUT, WHAT ABOUT MANUFACTURE & PRODUCTION?? OR ARE THOSE JOBS RESERVED FOR EUROPEANS??]

The [NEW YORK STATE] Public Service Commission voted unanimously to allow Iberdrola S.A., a Spanish energy conglomerate, to acquire Energy East, a Maine-based utility with operations in five states.

Iberdrola said earlier this summer that it would invest at least $2 billion in wind turbines across upstate New York if the commission allowed it to acquire Energy East, subsidiaries of which supply electricity or natural gas to 1.7 million customers in the state.

The commission’s decision was the final hurdle for the $4.6 billion deal, which had been approved by federal and other state regulators, but spent a year under scrutiny by the commission’s staff, which recommended that it be blocked.

In approving the acquisition, the commission substantially lightened the conditions of sale that had been recommended by its staff, which had been criticized as onerous by Iberdrola and elected officials of both parties. The commission likewise moderated the recommendations made in June by an administrative law judge, who largely endorsed the staff proposal.

[DOES THIS PLACE COUNTRY, U.S. STATE FIRST??]

For example, the commission said that Iberdrola would need to provide only $275 million worth of rebates to Energy East’s current New York customers, far less than the $646 million the commission’s analysts had earlier proposed.

The commission’s staff had also opposed allowing Iberdrola to build wind turbines in the state, arguing that it would violate a longstanding commission policy to prevent the generation, transmission and distribution of power by a single company, which could leave customers and suppliers vulnerable to price manipulation.

But the commission members said they would allow Iberdrola to develop wind power as long as it obeyed restrictions devised to mitigate the risk of price manipulation.

“Developing renewable energy sources is critically important for New York,” said Garry A. Brown, the commission’s chairman. “Our decision today allows Iberdrola to fulfill its commitment to invest in renewable energy projects in New York State.”

In a statement, Gov. David A. Paterson said the commission had “struck a well-considered balance” in its proposal. “I anticipate the company will readily embrace this decision and accept its conditions, and I welcome Iberdrola to New York,” Mr. Paterson said.

But opponents of the deal, including the Independent Power Producers of New York, a trade group of utilities, said they remained worried that Iberdrola would gain too much market power under the deal.

“My concern is that there are a multitude of wind generators that want to operate in New York, so it is critical that Iberdrola respect the limitations that have been put on them, so that there is not a potential for market manipulation,” said Gavin J. Donohue, the group’s president.

Under the terms of the deal, Iberdrola would be bound to invest $200 million in wind power. But the company has promised to spend 10 times that amount, with plans for numerous wind parks spread throughout upstate New York.

New York is expected to have about 1,000 megawatts of existing capacity by the end of this year, and the plans would add about 1,000 megawatts of wind capacity to the state within a few years.

“It is a really large investment and a very significant number,” said Carol E. Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, a trade group of environmental advocates and wind power producers, including Iberdrola. “This is a major infusion of dollars and investment into our wind industry.”

Under commission rules, the staff will release a detailed version of the proposal in coming days. It will then be up to Iberdrola to agree to the deal, if it so chooses. Elected officials, including Mr. Paterson, said they expected the company to accept it.

In a statement, the company said, “We thank the commission for its time and effort on the matter, and we look forward to reviewing the order to determine next steps.”

Last week, the commission postponed a vote on the Iberdrola acquisition after one commissioner fell ill; a second commissioner was also absent on the day of the vote and soon announced that she was resigning from the commission for personal reasons. The vote on Wednesday was 4-0.

The commission’s proposal also included a requirement that Iberdrola insulate its New York operations from any financial risks the company assumes in other states or abroad. Iberdrola would also have to divest Energy East’s fossil fuel generating plants, though it could retain the company’s hydroelectric power operations.

United States Senator Charles E. Schumer, who was among the critics of the original requirement that Iberdrola drop its wind power plans, also praised the deal.

“We have argued long and hard for Iberdrola’s ability to develop wind power, and we very much urge them to accept this ruling,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement.

[HOW MANY 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS CAN SENATOR SCHUMER GUARANTEE THAT THIS DEAL DELIVERS TO NEW YORK WORKERS???]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080826/NEWS01/808260336

New York PSC to rule on Iberdrola's $4.5B bid for Energy East

Jim Stinson and Gary CraigStaff writers

Democrat and Chronicle.com

August 26, 2008

The future of the world's fourth-largest utility in New York state could soon be at an end, or a beginning.

Iberdrola SA of Bilbao, Spain, has bid more than $4.5 billion for Energy East Corp., the parent company of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas Corp. Fourteen months after the friendly deal was unveiled, Iberdrola is due to get a thumbs up or thumbs down Wednesday from the state Public Service Commission.

At stake are $2 billion in upstate investment, New York's reputation as a place to do business and what might happen to the fourth-highest residential electricity rates in the nation.

The federal government and three other northeastern states have already approved the sale of Maine-based Energy East to Iberdrola.

In New York, the deal has been held up by some of the oldest and newest concerns in the energy sector and utility regulation. The old: The state needs to ensure that more than 1 million RG&E and NYSEG customers won't get hit with higher bills. The new: Could Iberdrola, the world's foremost wind power company, manipulate the price of electricity if it owns both wind turbines and transmission lines by making it difficult or impossible for another company to open a competing wind farm or generation plant?

The PSC staff has recommended that the five commissioners reject the deal on the grounds that it isn't in consumers' best interests.

Iberdrola has said the staff concerns are overblown and that the deal is good for New York because it will bring investment, jobs and renewable energy to a state that needs all three.

Business groups, such as the Rochester Business Alliance and Greater Rochester Enterprise, and powerful politicians, including both U.S. senators, support Iberdrola, with many fearful that PSC rejection would brand the state as anti-business.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said through a spokesman Friday that "Iberdrola's proposal ... has the potential to continue to build the state's reputation as a leader in the alternative energy industry, while making a considerable investment in bringing new jobs and other economic opportunities to upstate New York."

Gov. David Paterson hasn't taken a position, but he has heaped praise on the company for promising to spend $2 billion on wind investments within five years.

[PERHAPS, EARLY ON, GOVERNOR PATERSON SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE ADVICE FORMER NYC MAJOR RUDY GULIANI RECENTLY GAVE TO SENATOR OBAMA. "As Mayor of New York City, I never got a chance to vote 'present'. Sarah Palin didn't have this vote 'present' as governor. And you know, when you're President of the United States, you can't just vote 'present'. It's not good enough to be 'present'. You have to make a decision."].

[MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS THIS PROMISE LIKELY TO BE ENFORCED IF THE ECONOMICS OF THE DEAL CHANGES?? FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IF THE U.S. DOLLAR STRENGTHENS AGAINST THE EURO?? WHAT IF THE COST OF A BARREL OF OIL KEEPS ON DROPPING?? WHAT FINANCIAL HEDGES DOES IBERDROLA HAVE IN PLACE TO ENSURE AGAINST SUCH FINANCIAL RISKS? WHAT GUARANTEE DOES THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAVE, OR FOR THAT MATTER, EACH OF THE NORTHEASTERN STATES THAT SIGNED SIMILAR DEALS, TO ENSURE THAT IBERDROLA DOES NOT CLOSE THE U.S. FACTORIES/ASSEMBLY FACILITIES IT BUILDS IN FAVOR OF MOVING LOWER LABOR COST JURISDICTIONS IN ASIA??]

Allure of wind energy

Wind energy isn't as powerful or predictable as nuclear power, coal-fired or natural-gas-fired generators, but it is not insignificant. New York has set a goal of getting 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources such as wind by 2013. Iberdrola already runs a wind farm in Lewis County, east of Lake Ontario, and the company has proposed 10 additional wind farms throughout upstate, including three Rochester-area facilities that could generate 258 megawatts of electricity, potentially powering more than 70,000 homes yearly.

But if Iberdrola owns RG&E and NYSEG, the company will control the distribution of electricity as well as its generation — a dual role that the Public Service Commission has opposed for more than 10 years on the principle that such "vertical integration" is anti-competitive.

Iberdrola has said it would walk away from the Energy East deal if forced to give up ownership of the wind farms, which it claims aren't competitive generators because of the variable nature of wind power.

That same variable nature also means Iberdrola could not control market prices, the company argued. Yet the idea of price manipulation by wind farms is not far-fetched to some.

"Once you have the energy and transmission, there are any number of clever things you can do," said Robert McCullough, managing partner of McCullough Research of Portland, Ore.

"The (PSC) staff is entirely correct."

One tactic is to withhold power when demand is high, driving up the price. But how is the price set?

Forty-five percent of electricity is sold on the day-ahead market and 5 percent is sold on the separate real-time, or instant, market, according to spokesman Kenneth Klapp of the New York Independent System Operator, which operates the state's power grid. (The other 50 percent is sold under contractual agreements.)

For the 50 percent of energy that's subject to market fluctuations, the Independent System Operator uses an industry standard known as the uniform clearing price system. The price goes up based on demand. When demand is satisfied, higher bids fail.

But final prices tend to reflect the last, highest bid, and Iberdrola would have motive to keep prices high through tactics such as withholding power, critics have said.

Iberdrola countered that wind farms aren't known to set going-rate electricity prices anywhere in the world. Sellers take what they can get, according to Pedro Azagra, the Spanish company's director of corporate development. The only reason U.S. wind farms make money is usually because of subsidies from the state, according to Azagra.

The other major concern is that Iberdrola could interfere with generation plants and wind turbine companies seeking to connect to the grid in RG&E and NYSEG territory.

Iberdrola said there were substantial penalties, including fines and forfeiture of profits, to deter such illegal behavior. But McCullough, who testified to the U.S. Senate about corrupt energy titan Enron Corp., said market surveillance by the state grid operator and U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was likely to be spotty and could not prevent all abuses.

Other states

Regulatory agencies in three states — Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire — have already approved the Iberdrola acquisition of Energy East. Still, some of the same questions arose during regulatory hearings in those states.

Some agencies questioned whether the deal would help consumers.

In Connecticut, for instance, the state Office of Consumer Counsel contended that Iberdrola was, at best, vague in its claims about the benefits for customers.

"The massive size and financial wherewithal enjoyed by Iberdrola was often touted as a benefit for consumers and public policy ... but in response again to questioning by the department staff, the (Iberdrola) witnesses could not, or would not, offer anything concrete as assurance that this claimed benefit would in fact be of any benefit at all," Connecticut Consumer Counsel Mary J. Healey wrote in an October 2007 opinion about Iberdrola's answers to questions from the staff of the state's Department of Public Utility Control.

But one key and soothing condition has been local staffing and control.

The Connecticut Consumer Counsel's Office was heartened that Iberdrola planned to keep local utility management intact, said Richard Sobolewski, the office's supervisor of technical analysis, in a phone interview.

The Consumer Counsel's Office, which did not oppose the merger, wasn't fearful of foreign ownership of local utilities, Sobolewski said. Already, he said, some Connecticut water utilities are owned by foreign corporations.

"In this global economy we have now, you can't just say, 'We don't want foreign ownership,'" Sobolewski said.

Iberdrola maintained in Connecticut, as elsewhere, that the merger would have no adverse impact upon customers, and the state's Department of Public Utility Control concurred, approving the deal in November.

In Maine, worries about foreign ownership — especially questions about whether a mammoth corporation based in Spain would care much about American-based utility consumers — did arise.

For one Maine organization, a nonprofit called Friends of the Coast, those fears were especially important: The organization tries to ensure that 700-plus tons of nuclear waste stored at a decommissioned nuclear power plant, the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station, will stay secured and not threaten nearby waterways.

"There's an element of distance because of the size (of Iberdrola)," said Raymond Shadis, Friends of the Coast executive director.

Friends of the Coast is a small organization, Shadis said, and he worried that Iberdrola might consider it more a nuisance that a reasonable arbiter of public safety.

But, he said, he was pleasantly surprised that the company met with Friends of the Coast and quelled the organization's anxieties.

"They were easy to work with," he said.

In New York, Iberdrola similarly has sought to assure consumers and officials that its ownership wouldn't mean drastic changes.

In Rochester, for example, management of both RG&E and NYSEG would remain in place and continue to operate the utilities, Iberdrola said. The long-familiar names of the two companies also would be retained.

JFSTINSO@DemocratandChronicle.com

GCRAIG@DemocratandChronicle.com

Issues at a glance

Iberdrola SA of Bilbao, Spain, proposes to buy Energy East Corp., the parent of Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. and New York State Electric and Gas Corp., for $4.5 billion. The state Public Service Commission is expected to rule on the acquisition Wednesday. Here are key arguments for and against the deal:

Topic
Pros
Cons

Consumer rates

Iberdrola promises $201 million in rate relief for RG&E and NYSEG customers and says state regulators are demanding of Iberdrola at least three times what they have required in past utility mergers.

Rate relief should be $644 million, PSC administrative law judge says. Deal poses risk that Iberdrola would pass on wind power costs to ratepayers.

Competition

Ownership of both generation and distribution facilities, as Iberdrola proposes, isn’t monopolistic because wind power isn’t a competitive form of generation. [??]

PSC operates under principle that power generation must be separate from transmission and distribution. Making an exception for Iberdrola would violate policy and raise the possibility that Iberdrola could keep out competing wind energy companies.

Economic development

Iberdrola promises to invest $2 billion in wind energy projects in the state. Approval of deal would show that New York isn’t hostile to business.

Company’s investment promise isn’t enforceable and is nothing more than arm-twisting to win approval. Other wind energy developers already are investing in New York.

Foreign ownership

International ownership of utilities has become common. Iberdrola already owns Scottish Power. National Grid of the United Kingdom owns Niagara Mohawk in New York state.

PSC staff says ownership by a multinational company raises management issues because Iberdrola is so large it might not know what all its subsidiaries are doing.

Environment

Iberdrola’s expertise in wind power will help move New York state toward goal of generating 25 percent of electricity by renewable means such as wind and hydropower by 2013.

Wind power is too variable to be a reliable source of energy, poses a threat to birds and creates visual and noise pollution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://media.cleantech.com/3054/iberdrola-bids-for-rest-of-wind-developer-rokas

Iberdrola bids for rest of wind developer Rokas

CleanTech.com

July 2, 2008

The Spanish renewable energy company offers €175 million for the remaining shares of the Greek wind developer.

Madrid-based Iberdrola Renewables has launched a €175 million offer to acquire the shares of Greek wind developer Rokas Group that it does not already own.

Iberdrola Renewables, a subsidiary of Spanish energy group Iberdrola, said it holds 52.7 percent of Rokas' ordinary shares and 47.3 percent of the preferred stock.

The Spanish renewable company said its offer is €16 for each ordinary Rokas share and €11 for the preferred stock.

Rokas has 13 wind farms with 193.3 megawatts of capacity, as well as a 171.6 kilowatt solar photovoltaic plant, according to Iberdrola Renewables.

Iberdrola Renewables first moved into the Greek market in December 2004 when it acquired 21 percent of Rokas' ordinary shares.

Since then, the company said it has gradually increased its presence in the Greek wind power market with 49.9 percent of Rokas' stock held at the end of 2005 and 52.7 percent in March last year.

Iberdrola Renewables said the deal would consolidate its wind energy ownership in Greece, increasing its installed capacity to 217 MW, up from 124 MW.

The company said the transaction is subject to authorization by the Greek stock market regulator, which is expected to be obtained by the end of this month. Iberdrola hopes to complete the deal in mid-September.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://media.cleantech.com/2982/iderbola-signs-6b-turbine-deal

Iberdrola signs €6.3B turbine deal

June 16, 2008

The deal, touted as the sector's largest, includes the installation and operation of 4,500 MW of wind power.

Spain's electrical giant, Iberdrola Renewables said it signed a €6.3 billion supply contract for wind turbines from Madrid's Gamesa, a wind turbine manufacturer.

Touting it as the "sector's largest ever transaction," Iberdrola, also Madrid-based, said it is acquiring turbines with a total capacity of 4,500 megawatts for wind projects in Europe, the U.S. and Mexico.

According to Iberdola, the €6.3 billion figure is to encompass overall costs associated with installing the turbines, including the cost of the turbines, cost of transport, and moneys associated with civil works and interconnections, both at the wind farms and to the grid.

In addition to installation, Iberdrola said the contract covers turbine startup, operational services and maintenance during the life of the guarantee.

Iberdrola said the deal would help the company meet more than 70 percent of its requirements up to 2012. The company said its current turbine supply stands at 42,280 MW.

The company asserts the deal would help to "avoid one of the major uncertainties in the business by assuring the installation of a significant portion of its projects for the medium term."

The Spanish electric company's last turbine contract with Gamesa was in 2006 and was for a reported 2,700 MW of power.

Iberdrola's most recent turbine contracts include General Electric for 300 MW, Mitsubishi for 300 MW, Suzlon Wind Energy for 700 MW, and Ecotencia for 310 MW.

[IS GENERAL ELECTRIC OUTSOURCING 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS TO IBERDROLA??]

In addition to the supply contract, the Iberdrola and Gamesa announced a partnership to combine efforts to promote, develop and exploit wind farms in Spain and continental Europe.

Under the partnership, two joint companies are to be formed, one in Spain and the other abroad.

Iberdrola is to hold 77 percent of the new Spanish venture and Gamesa is to hold 23 percent, while Iderbola said its shareholdings in the international venture would be 76 percent, with Gamesa holding 24 percent.

Once the partnership is approved by antitrust authorities, Gamesa said it can increase its shareholding in the jointly owned Spanish company up to 32 percent, relative to the number of additional megawatts that correspond to new wind farms.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/judge_recommends_state_psc_rej.html

Judge says state should reject Iberdrola's purchase of NYSEG, RG&E parent

by The Associated Press

Monday June 16, 2008, 6:31 PM

Albany, NY -- Iberdrola SA's plan to acquire Energy East Corp. hit another snag Monday.

A state administrative law judge recommended New York utility regulators reject the proposed $4.6 billion deal, saying it doesn't satisfy the public interest requirement of state utilities law.

Iberdrola, a Spanish energy company, needs approval from New York's five-person Public Service Commission to buy Energy East. It is the parent company of Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. and New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

PSC staff oppose the deal because of concerns about whether it will best serve the public in cost and competitiveness.

They recommended a series of conditions that Iberdrola must meet, including $646 million in rate cuts and other benefits to customers and selling all of its power-generation plants in the state. Since 1996, the PSC has pursued a goal of having utilities get out of the generation business to encourage competition.

Iberdrola objected to some of the PSC's demands -- including sale of its interest in wind and hydropower generating plants -- and the case was referred to Administrative Law Judge Rafael Epstein for review. The PSC is not bound to follow Epstein's recommendations.

Epstein's 151-page opinion recommended rejecting the deal because it would not be in the public interest.

Should the commission approve the deal anyway, Epstein recommended conditions similar to those proposed by PSC staff. Epstein said Iberdrola should sell generating plants that are connected to RG&E's or NYSEG's distribution network and provide the rate cuts advanced by PSC staff.

The judge also recommended that Iberdrola should be subject to financial and structural safeguards to insulate NYSEG and RG&E from risks associated with Iberdrola's other businesses.

Epstein's ruling did not address the merits of Iberdrola's recent promise to invest $2 billion in wind energy in New York over the next five years if the Energy East purchase goes through.

[HENCE, ISN'T THE PROMISE UNENFORCEABLE???]

Mindy Bockstein, executive director of the state's Consumer Protection Board, said the board will formally ask the PSC to consider the implications of the investment when making its decision.

Sen. Charles Schumer said the judge's ruling "defies common sense."

"At a time when gas prices are $4 a gallon, and we desperately need to develop alternative sources of energy, to place such severe restrictions on the world's leading wind power producer to develop wind power cries out for reversal," Schumer said.

James Denn, a PSC spokesman, said there has been no date set for a final decision.

A spokesman for Iberdola said the company is reviewing the judge's recommendations and had no immediate comment.

PSC approval is the last hurdle for Iberdrola's acquisition of Energy East, according to Epstein. Regulators in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine -- also served by Energy East -- and various federal agencies have signed off on the deal.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press and The Post-Standard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:QfUA6DpxiyEJ:www.reuters.com/articlePrint%3FarticleId%3DUSL0974987220080609+Iberdrola+%2B+factories&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

Industry ministry rejects Iberdrola appeal on ACS

Reuters

June 9, 2008

MADRID, June 9 (Reuters) - Spain's Industry Ministry has rejected an appeal by power company Iberdrola (IBE.MC: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to limit the voting rights of builder ACS (ACS.MC: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and prevent it from building up a larger stake in Iberdrola, industry sources said on Monday.

Iberdrola had appealed a decision earlier this year by Spain's energy watchdog after Iberdrola sought to cap ACS when the construction company admitted it had held talks with French power giant EDF (EDF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) on a possible takeover of Iberdrola.

Iberdrola wanted to limit ACS's voting rights to 3 percent and its share stake to 10 percent. ACS currently owns just under 13 percent of Iberdrola in shares and derivatives and has permission from the regulator to increase its stake.

[IBERDROLA ALSO SOUGHT TO LIMIT NEW YORK STATE CONSUMER'S AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THEIR ACQUISITION OF ENERGY EAST. HMMM...THIS SEEMS TO REFLECT A PATTERN...]

ACS wanted to leverage the stake in a takeover deal with EDF in which Union Fenosa (UNF.MC: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), another Spanish power company in which ACS owns over 40 percent, would take power generation assets equivalent to the value of the ACS Iberdrola stake.

No one at the Industry Ministry was available for comment.

[OF COURSE NOT! HOW OFTEN IS A EUROPEAN MINISTRY ACTUALLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC??]

Iberdrola has been the source of constant speculation since ACS's interest emerged with various merger combinations touted in order to block EDF's possible entry into the Spanish market.
The merger talk has quietened in recent weeks since EDF said it had made a preliminary bid for UK nuclear operator British Energy (BGY.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

British Energy said on Monday, however, that none of the offers it has received so far were high enough. (Reporting by Joe Ortiz, editing by Richard Chang)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/06/02/daily34.html?ana=from_rss

Iberdrola to invest $2B in wind power farms in New York

Portland Business Journal

June 5, 2008

Spanish utility giant Iberdrola wants to invest $2 billion developing wind power farms across New York state.

But that funding hinges on New York's Public Service Commission's acceptance of Iberdrola's proposed $4.5 billion purchase of Energy East Corp. (NYSE: EAS) and its 63,000 customers in the Albany, N.Y., area.

Iberdrola Renewables, the company's U.S.-based renewable energy division in Portland, likely would be involved in building the wind farms, according to spokeswoman Jan Johnson.

Iberdrola, the second-largest wind energy operator in the U.S., earlier committed to at least $100 million in renewable energy investments in New York, but now appears to be upping the ante. Top company officials gathered with New York state legislators in Albany earlier this week to urge New York's Public Service Commission to approve the deal.

"We don't have to do it, but we want to do it," said Pedro Azagra, Iberdrola's director of corporate development. "The only thing we want is to invest as much as we can here."

But, Azagra added, Iberdrola plans to pull back on the $2 billion in wind farm investments if the Public Service Commission nixes the Energy East acquisition.

[WILL THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PERMIT IBERDROLA TO GET ITS WAY, EVEN IF IT VIOLATES NEW YORK STATE LAW & EQUITY?? YOU BET, ON THE BALD, UNENFORCEABLE PROMISE OF 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS!!]

The deal has already received necessary federal approval and the OK from the four other Northeast states that Energy East serves. New York's Public Service Commission is the last checkpoint that the deal must clear.

Iberdrola has said it wants to wrap up the process soon, as early as this month. It brought the deal to the commission for review 10 months ago. But acquisition review proceedings could take several months more.

All contents of this site © American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://livemodern.com/greenblogs/4de81e249731fe3be41b1eb16095a52d

EdF and Iberdrola, a Renewable Energy Powerhouse?

by Denis Du Bois from Energy Priorities (green blog)

3/22/2008

Electricite de France is rumored to be working on a deal in which EdF could acquire a controlling share in Iberdrola. The combination would create a renewable energy giant with multinational clout.

The French utility Electricite de France SA has had exploratory talks with a construction company in Spain, with its eye on the Spanish energy market, according to an AP wire story.

The Wall Street Journal reported that EdF and Actividades de Construccion y Servicios SA (ACS) are in advanced talks about teaming up to buy Iberdrola DS and Union Fenosa SA -- two major Spanish utilities -- for US$134 billion.

The combination of these two giants of renewable energy would create a global powerhouse with considerable clout in the supply chain and in politics.

EdF is the world's largest utility. Its subsidiary Energies Nouvelles is a major player in the renewable energy sector. One of the company's larger endeavors in 2007 was to start construction of a 300 MW wind farm off the coast of Belgium.

Energies Nouvelles operates four U.S. wind farms with 508.5 MW of total capacity owned by MidAmerican Energy Company. Energies Nouvelles Reparties (ENR) is a new EdF venture in equipment manufacturing, such as solar water heaters, photovoltaic modules, heat pumps and wood-fired heating equipment.

Iberdrola Renewables is a major operator of utility-class wind and solar installations, claiming 7,704 MW in clean energy production capacity worldwide.

Within the last few weeks it completed commissioning of the 223 MW Klondike III wind farm in Oregon.

The utility group last month acquired rights to a portfolio of 50 wind projects, with a total of 1,600 MW, in Romania. In 2007 New Energy Finance ranked Iberdrola Renewables as the world's leader in installed wind power capacity.

The acquisition deal has been only partly confirmed by EdF, and could face insurmountable resistance from regulators or the acquisition targets.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://media.cleantech.com/2316/acciona-opens-first-wind-turbine-facility-in-u-s

Acciona opens first wind turbine facility in U.S.

January 17, 2008

CleanTech.com

Spanish energy giant, a leader in wind, servicing U.S. demand with a local plant. Acciona today marked the opening of a first wind turbine production plant in the United States.

The new facility in West Branch, Iowa cost $23 million and was constructed in seven months.

It is to produce 200 wind turbines in 2008, with plans to increase to 400 turbines per year in the future.

The plant will supply turbines primarily for Acciona Energy wind farms throughout North America based on technology from its wind turbine manufacturing subsidiary, Acciona Windpower, in producing its AWP 1.5-77 models.

The plant is expected to provide more than 100 new jobs.

Acciona is a leading developer of windparks worldwide, with more than 5,300 MW installed in twelve countries.

It's also a significant solar developer, recently launching Nevada Solar One, the largest solar thermal power plant (64 MW) built in the world in the last 17 years (see Biggest solar thermal plant in 16 years connects to Nevada grid).

It also has biomass plants, small hydro power stations and produces biodiesel from vegetable oil and bioethanol from wine-surplus alcohol.

The new wind turbine plant in Iowa is Acciona’s fourth, with two other wind plants in Spain and one in China. In total, the company now has a global production capacity up to 2,280 MW of wind turbines a year, it said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/15/turbine_shortage_knocks_wind_out_projects/

Turbine shortage knocks wind out of projects

By KEITH JOHNSON

The Wall Street Journal

July 15, 2007

The race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.

In recent years, improved technology has made it possible to build bigger, more efficient windmills. That, combined with surging political support for renewable energy, has driven up demand. Now, makers can't keep up, mostly because they can't get the parts they need fast enough.

Numerous wind-power projects from Virginia to California have been stalled due to the shortage. But for some renewable-energy companies in Europe, where wind power has been in vogue for almost two decades, the logjam is a lucrative opportunity.

These firms anticipated a shortage of turbines and locked in orders with makers. They're now using their considerable buying power to gobble up smaller utilities in the U.S. that couldn't otherwise get their hands on turbines.

[A VERY CLEVER MARKET ENTRY/ACQUISITION STRATEGY TO DOMINATE THE U.S. RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET, RELYING PREDOMINANTLY ON OUTSOURCING MANUFACTURING TO OVERSEAS (NON-U.S.) FACTORIES TO PRODUCE THE TURBINES AND ITS THOUSANDS OF COMPONENT PARTS AT LOWER LABOR & MATERIAL COST. THUS, ANY PROMISE TO BUILD WIND TURBINE FACTORIES WITHIN THE U.S. SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED TO CONFIRM WHETHER IT IS MERELY 'GREEN COLLAR' JOB 'WINDOW-DRESSING' INTENDED TO SECURE REGULATOR APPROVAL OF ACQUISITIONS].

That was the case with Community Energy Inc., a firm in Wayne, Pa. After trying for years to kick-start wind-power projects in the U.S., the company had built only two small wind farms; a third sat idle. Brent Alderfer, the founder and chief executive, said he had few problems acquiring the necessary permits and funding. But when it came to getting windmills, he faced a multiyear delay.

"We were like an airline sitting there and being told we had to wait three years to get our airplanes," he says.

In late 2005, Alderfer contacted Iberdrola SA, a Madrid-based utility that has emerged as one of the world's leaders in renewable energy. Six months later, Iberdrola purchased Community Energy for $40 million. Two months after that, technicians had outfitted the company's stillborn project with gleaming white turbines that started churning out enough clean electricity for about 6,500 homes.

"We couldn't have done this on our own — not then, not in five years' time," says Alderfer.

Moving parts

Modern wind turbines are astonishingly complicated machines, containing more than 8,000 components and requiring special transformers to turn their spinning blades into electricity.

Though commonly called windmills, they're technically wind turbines. Manufacturers depend on a network of component suppliers that, in turn, need years to ramp up production. That's created a bottleneck for the turbinemakers.

Iberdrola's strategic advantage stems in part from $4.09 billion bet it made last year to lock up most of the order book of Spanish turbinemaker Gamesa SA, the world's second largest, through 2009. Iberdrola also holds a 24 percent equity stake in Gamesa.

In addition to Community Energy, Iberdrola snapped up two other small U.S. developers last year in Iowa and Virginia, both of which lacked the funding and the turbines to get going. Last month, it entered into a deal to buy its first regulated U.S. utility company, Energy East Corp., of Portland, Maine, for $4.58 billion, in part to take advantage of U.S. tax credits for wind.

Though still a relatively small force on the U.S. energy grid, wind power is on the rise as oil prices and environmental concerns soar.

Governments from Beijing to Sacramento are showering the sector with subsidies in an effort to boost production of clean energy and reduce emissions of greenhouse-gases such as carbon dioxide.

Europe now plans to produce 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, up from about 6 percent today, with wind power playing the leading role.

In the U.S., more wind power was installed last year than in any other country in the world: 2,454 megawatts, or more than the equivalent of two nuclear reactors.

Locally, officials with state grant money are setting up a monitoring station at the former Charleston Naval Base to study the coastal breeze 150 feet in the air to gauge whether there is enough wind up there to generate electricity. There are no plans for a turbine at this point.

Despite the recent action, the U.S. still lags behind other countries that have spent decades nurturing wind power with subsidies and price supports. Germany has fewer wind resources — breezy, wide-open spaces — than the state of North Dakota, for instance, but has twice as much wind power as the entire U.S.

Spain, with one-seventh the population of the U.S., has the same amount of wind power. Overall, only about 1 percent of power in the U.S. comes from wind.

The turbine shortage could have a significant impact on how quickly the industry can continue to grow in the near term, as well as on what shape it will take in the future. Just five manufacturers produce more than 80 percent of the world's wind turbines. A midsize, 1.5-megawatt turbine costs about $1.2 million.

Miguel Salis, head of the Madrid-based Eolia, a fund that supplies financing and development know-how to small wind-farm developers, says "The biggest restriction right now to wind power's growth — everywhere, not just in the U.S. — is the lack of turbines."

He says that so many developers have "projects under way but can't get them completed, often because the turbinemakers don't give them the time of day."

Roller coaster ride

Because wind power was basically a cottage industry until recently, it was slow to develop a large group of professional manufacturers. Some turbine manufacturers, such as Siemens Wind, are offshoots of large engineering groups. General Electric Co. bought Enron's wind division when the Houston company imploded. Gamesa started life half a century ago designing propeller blades for aircraft and still makes most of its own blades.

In the U.S., there's another potential threat to growth: erratic government support for wind power.

Even though wind power has made technical strides recently, energy firms still rely on subsidies because it costs more to generate electricity with wind turbines than other power plants such as coal, natural gas or nuclear. Wind power requires intensive capital investment in a short period of time and has added costs such as upgrading transmission systems. According to the International Energy Agency in Paris, wind farms cost between 4 and 14 cents to generate a kilowatt hour; coal-fired plants cost between 2.5 and 6 cents.

Some 20 states now have price supports for wind-generated electricity, and there is a federal tax credit to encourage new wind-park development. But there is no federal requirement for utilities to buy green energy, as there is in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany.

The lack of a stable, long-term regulatory environment has created a wind-power roller coaster. Developers were never sure their projects would make economic sense a few years down the road if the regulatory climate changed. Foreign turbine manufacturers were reluctant to build U.S. factories.

[IS THIS NOT 'SUBTLE' PRESSURE TO INFLUENCE U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE/ RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY??]

Today, states such as Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Oregon have gone out of their way to lure foreign turbinemakers.

Suzlon [INDIA] is building a turbine plant in Minnesota. Siemens Wind [GERMANY] and Acciona Energia SA of Spain both announced plans to open turbine factories in Iowa. Gamesa [SPAIN] has three plants operating in Pennsylvania.

In North Carolina, PG Industries, which cut hundreds of jobs while competing with China to manufacture fiberglass several years ago, is now spending $20 million over three years to manufacture the product for turbine blades near Shelby. [PROVIDING AMERICAN 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS] The American Wind Energy Association, a nonprofit that promotes the industry, says factories in the Carolinas are perfect for making the windmill tools.

In a few years' time, the new factories could help ease the current bottleneck. But in the short term, the supply crunch has shaken the economics of wind power.

Lots of room

In some ways, wind power is a victim of its own success. Rising fossil-fuel prices and bigger and more sophisticated turbines have brought wind power closer than ever to being competitive on price with traditional power sources. Modern machines are 10 to 20 times the size of the windmills first installed in California in the 1980s. Bigger machines have exponentially changed the economics of wind power because they take better advantage of the wind and work more hours than the smaller, older machines.

That, in turn, has sparked a boom in demand for new wind-power projects worldwide.

Better technology and growing political support for clean energy should have made life easier for Community Energy. When Brent Alderfer started his company in 1999, there were no commercial wind farms operating east of the Mississippi.

Instead, as wind power became more attractive, his job got tougher. After finishing the second wind farm, a modest 24-megawatt project in New Jersey, Community Energy executives realized that upcoming projects would have to be much larger in order to be economically feasible. Some would require as many as 100 new turbines.

"The whole thing moved quickly beyond our ability to finance it," Alderfer says.

The U.S. wind industry was in one of its periodic booms. After two years with virtually no new wind power, federal tax credits were renewed for 2005 and 2006. Suddenly, wind farms were cropping up everywhere. Oil-rich but windswept Texas overtook California as the leading wind-power state.

Community Energy was trying to stay in the race. In late 2005, the company sought to outfit its latest wind farm, at Locust Ridge, Pa., but couldn't get the machines. Locust Ridge was put on hold again.

Then he decided to call Iberdrola, the Spanish utility. At the time, Iberdrola didn't yet have a beachhead in the U.S., and executives thought it was a potential gold mine. Wind energy in the U.S. "is like Europe was years ago," says Xavier Viteri, the 46-year-old head of Iberdrola's renewable-energy business.

"There's a lot of room for development there, and there is a lot of expertise here."

[THE U.S. CONGRESS & U.S. STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS ARE PRESENTING EUROPEAN WIND TURBINE COMPANIES WITH AN IRRESISTIBLE 'GOLD MINE' OF OPPORTUNITY, and PERMITTING THE ACQUISITION OF AMERICAN COMPANIES BASED ON THE OSTENSIBLE, BUT UNENFORCEABLE PROMISE TO 'CREATE' (at least temporarily) U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newwindenergy.com/fileadmin/templates/PDF/07_09_07_TheWallStreetJournal_AlternativeEnergyHurtByAWidmillShortage.pdf

Alternative Energy Hurt By a Windmill Shortage - While Projects in U.S. Stall, Europe's Utilities Expand Their Reach

By KEITH JOHNSON

The Wall Street Journal – Current Affairs

July 9, 2007; Page A1

The race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.

In recent years, improved technology has made it possible to build bigger, more efficient windmills. That, combined with surging political support for renewable energy, has driven up demand. Now, makers can't keep up -- mostly because they can't get the parts they need fast enough.

POWER SPIN

• The Situation: Interest in renewable energy, such as wind power, is surging, but the makers of wind-turbine parts can't keep up with demand.
• The Background: The U.S. lags other countries in wind-turbine capacity, and government support has been inconsistent.
• What's Ahead: Foreign players are moving into the U.S. market, with acquisitions and wind-farm projects.

Numerous wind-power projects from Virginia to California have been stalled due to the shortage. But for some renewable-energy companies in Europe, where wind power has been in vogue for almost two decades, the logjam is a lucrative opportunity. These firms anticipated a shortage of turbines and locked in orders with makers. They're now using their considerable buying power to gobble up smaller utilities in the U.S. that couldn't otherwise get their hands on turbines.

That was the case with Community Energy Inc., a company in Wayne, Pa. After trying for years to kick-start wind-power projects in the U.S., the company had built only two small wind farms; a third sat idle. Brent Alderfer, the founder and chief executive, said he had few problems acquiring the necessary permits and funding. But when it came to getting windmills, he faced a multiyear delay.

"We were like an airline sitting there and being told we had to wait three years to get our airplanes," he says.

In late 2005, Mr. Alderfer contacted Iberdrola SA, a Madrid-based utility that has emerged as one of the world's leaders in renewable energy. Six months later, Iberdrola purchased Community Energy for $40 million. Two months after that, technicians had outfitted the company's stillborn project with gleaming white turbines that started churning out enough clean electricity for about 6,500 homes.

"We couldn't have done this on our own -- not then, not in five years' time," says Mr. Alderfer.

Modern wind turbines are astonishingly complicated machines, containing more than 8,000 components and requiring special transformers to turn their spinning blades into electricity. Though commonly called windmills, they're technically wind turbines. Manufacturers depend on a network of component suppliers that, in turn, need years to ramp up production. That's created a bottleneck for the turbine makers.

Iberdrola's strategic advantage stems in part from a €3 billion, or $4.09 billion, bet it made last year to lock up most of the order book of Spanish turbine maker Gamesa SA -- the world's second largest -- through 2009. Iberdrola also holds a 24% equity stake in Gamesa.

In addition to Community Energy, Iberdrola snapped up two other small U.S. developers last year in Iowa and Virginia, both of which lacked the funding and the turbines to get going. Last month, it entered into a deal to buy its first regulated U.S. utility company, Energy East Corp., of Portland, Maine, for $4.58 billion, in part to take advantage of U.S. tax credits for wind.

Though still a relatively small force on the U.S. energy grid, wind power is on the rise as oil prices and environmental concerns soar. Governments from Beijing to Sacramento are showering the sector with subsidies in an effort to boost production of clean energy and reduce emissions of greenhouse-gases like carbon dioxide. Europe now plans to produce 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, up from about 6% today, with wind power playing the leading role.

In the U.S., more wind power was installed last year than in any country in the world - - 2,454 megawatts, or more than the equivalent of two nuclear reactors. Despite the recent action, the U.S. still lags behind other countries that have spent decades nurturing wind power with subsidies and price supports. Germany has fewer wind resources -- breezy, wide-open spaces -- than the state of North Dakota, for instance, but has twice as much wind power as the entire U.S. Spain, with one-seventh the population of the U.S., has the same amount of wind power. Overall, only about 1% of power in the U.S. comes from wind.

The turbine shortage could have a significant impact on how quickly the industry can continue to grow in the near term, as well as on what shape it will take in the future. Just five manufacturers produce more than 80% of the world's wind turbines. A midsize, 1.5-megawatt turbine costs about $1.2 million.

Miguel Salis, the head of the Madrid-based Eolia, a fund that supplies financing and development know-how to small wind-farm developers, says, "The biggest restriction right now to wind power's growth -- everywhere, not just in the U.S. -- is the lack of turbines." He says that so many developers have "projects under way but can't get them completed, often because the turbine makers don't give them the time of day."

Makers need thousands of specially crafted parts, including gearboxes, blades and bearings, to build a turbine. Transformers vary depending on each country's electrical grid. And the type of turbine depends on the wind resources available: Relatively wind-poor Germany has always used larger turbines, while breezier Spain and China have based their growth on midsize turbines.

Vestas A/S of Denmark, the world's biggest turbine maker, says the supply problems are crimping its production capacity. The company produced about 880 megawatts of turbines in the first quarter, down from more than 1,000 megawatts in the fourth quarter of 2006. "We are no stronger than the last delivered component out of the 8,000 components," Ditlev Engel, Vestas chief executive told investors in May. Turbine makers are trying to make up the difference. Vestas is hoarding components to keep production steady, at the expense of working capital. Others are buying companies that make components to bring production in-house.

Siemens Wind AG of Germany, a unit of Siemens AG, two years ago bought Winergy, the leading maker of gearboxes for turbines. Suzlon Energy Ltd. of India snapped up a series of smaller component companies. Then, last month, it paid $1.8 billion to buy rival turbine maker REPower Systems AG of Germany, which gave it access to a new set of component suppliers.

Because wind power was basically a cottage industry until recently, it was slow to develop a large group of professional manufacturers. Some turbine manufacturers, like Siemens Wind, are offshoots of large engineering groups. General Electric Co. bought Enron's wind division when the Houston company imploded. Gamesa started life half a century ago designing propeller blades for aircraft, and still makes most of its own blades.

In the U.S., there's another potential threat to growth -- erratic government support for wind power. Even though wind power has made technical strides recently, energy firms still rely on subsidies because it costs more to generate electricity with wind turbines than other power plants such as coal, natural gas or nuclear. Wind power requires intensive capital investment in a short period of time, and has added costs like upgrading transmission systems. According to the International Energy Agency in Paris, wind farms cost between four and 14 cents to generate a kilowatt hour; coalfired plants cost between 2.5 and six cents.

Some 20 states now have price supports for wind-generated electricity, and there is a federal tax credit to encourage new wind-park development. But there is no federal requirement for utilities to buy green energy, as there is in the United Kingdom, Denmark and Germany. And the tax credit, started in 1992, depends on a biannual congressional approval. An effort to introduce federal support for wind power was shot down this month in the Senate.

The lack of a stable, long-term regulatory environment has created a wind-power roller coaster. Developers were never sure their projects would make economic sense a few years down the road if the regulatory climate changed. Foreign turbine manufacturers were reluctant to build factories in the U.S. Vestas scrapped plans for a U.S. factory three times because of uncertainty. This spring, it announced it would build a turbine plant in Windsor, Colo.

Today, states such as Iowa, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Oregon have gone out of their way to lure foreign turbine makers. Suzlon is building a turbine plant in Minnesota. Siemens Wind and Acciona Energía SA of Spain both announced plans to open turbine factories in Iowa. Gamesa has three plants operating in Pennsylvania.

In a few years' time, those new factories could help ease the current bottleneck. But in the short term, the supply crunch has shaken the economics of wind power. European utility firms, meanwhile, are buying up U.S. energy firms. They say they believe growing consensus on the need to fight climate change will lead to a more stable regulatory framework for renewable energy.

[THIS IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT EUROPEAN COMPANIES POISED TO ECONOMICALLY BENEFIT FROM CLIMATE CHANGE ARE COMING ASHORE IN THE UNITED STATES TO NOT ONLY ACQUIRE U.S. UTILITIES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY COMPANIES, BUT ALSO TO EFFECTUATE / INFLUENCE U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE & ENERGY POLICY. See:
Request for Rulemaking to Provide American Depository Receipt Owners With Certain Traditional Shareowner Rights When Foreign Corporations Advocate On Significant U.S. Social Policy Issues Or Have Significant U.S. Social Impacts, SEC Petition 4-525 (Aug. 30, 2006) at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2006/petn4-525.pdf ].

Earlier this year, Portuguese utility Energias de Portugal SA, or EDP, paid about $2.7 billion for Horizon Wind Energy of Houston. Acciona Energia SA of Spain bought EcoEnergy LLC, a unit of the Morse Group in Freeport, Ill., last month; it plans to roll out about 1,500 megawatts of wind power in the Midwest over three years. And BP Alternative Energy, a division of U.K.-based BP PLC, snapped up Virginia-based Greenlight Energy Inc. last year for about $100 million.

European companies are estimated to own 20% of all the wind energy in the U.S., says Emerging Energy Research, a wind-power study group based in Cambridge, Mass.

American firms are now hustling to secure their own windmills to keep pace. Invenergy LLC, based in Chicago, signed a $1 billion deal with GE in May to get its hands on turbines to supply its ambitious development plan.

In some ways, wind power is a victim of its own success. Rising fossil-fuel prices and bigger and more sophisticated turbines have brought wind power closer than ever to being competitive on price with traditional power sources. Modern machines are 10 to 20 times the size of the windmills first installed in California in the 1980s. Bigger machines have exponentially changed the economics of wind power because they take better advantage of the wind and work more hours than the smaller, older machines.

That, in turn, has sparked a boom in demand for new wind-power projects worldwide.

The U.S. has quadrupled its wind-power capacity since 2000. China, which had only 346 megawatts of wind power installed in 2000, now has 2,500 megawatts, and expects to catch up to the U.S. within three years. World-wide, wind capacity has increased from 17,800 megawatts in 2000 to 74,300 megawatts at the end of last year, according to the Global Wind Energy Council, a trade group.

Better technology and growing political support for clean energy should have made life easier for Community Energy's Mr. Alderfer. When he started his company in 1999, there were no commercial wind farms operating east of the Mississippi.

Instead, as wind power became more attractive, his job got tougher. After finishing their second wind farm, a modest 24-megawatt project in New Jersey, Community Energy executives realized that upcoming projects would have to be much larger in order to be economically feasible. Some would require as many as 100 new turbines. "The whole thing moved quickly beyond our ability to finance it," Mr. Alderfer says.

The U.S. wind industry was in one of its periodic booms. After two years with virtually no new wind power, federal tax credits were renewed for 2005 and 2006. Suddenly, wind farms were cropping up everywhere. Oil-rich but windswept Texas overtook California as the leading wind-power state.

Community Energy was trying to stay in the race. In late 2005, the company sought to outfit its latest wind farm, at Locust Ridge, Pa., but couldn't get the machines. Mr. Alderfer talked with GE, the biggest U.S. turbine maker, but was told he would have to pay deposits against delivery of turbines in 2008 or 2009. That would mean going back to Community Energy's private holders to ask them to stump up more money, which Mr. Alderfer was loath to do. Locust Ridge was put on hold again. "What are we going to do with this project?" he recalls thinking.

Then he decided to call Iberdrola, the Spanish utility. At the time, Iberdrola didn't yet have a beachhead in the U.S., and executives thought it was a potential gold mine. Wind energy in the U.S. "is like Europe was years ago," says Xavier Viteri, the 46-year-old head of Iberdrola's renewable-energy business. "There's a lot of room for development there, and there is a lot of expertise here."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/06/26/iberdrola-energy-update-markets-equity-cx_vr_0626markets23.html

Spanish Acquisition Sends Energy East Soaring

By Vidya Ram,

6/26/07

LONDON -
Spain's Iberdrola has paid a sizable markup for Energy East, the New Gloucester, Maine-based utility supplier, and may have to issue new stock to pay for the deal. But for a company that has its long-term performance in mind, $4.5 billion is a price worth paying both for a proper foothold in the U.S. market, and an opportunity to avail itself of tax incentives in the renewables market.

The news that Iberdrola (other-otc: IBDRY - news - people ) is paying $28.50 a share, 27% above Friday's closing price of $22.37, sent shares in Energy East (nyse: EAS - news - people ) soaring by $3.84, or 17%, to $26.38 in early-afternoon trading in New York. The markup and the news that Iberdrola is considering issuing new stock hit the Spanish company's shares, which ended the day down down 1.63 euros ($2.19), or 3.8%, at 41.21 euros ($55.50).

The deal has yet to get the approval of Energy East shareholders, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state agencies. Iberdrola has stressed that the deal is a "friendly" one and is expected to get regulatory approval toward the end of 2008.

Iberdrola has said it may carry out a capital hike to fund the acquisition and is exploring possibilities, including the issue of new shares, though this will not take place until the deal is near completion.

Iberdrola has yet to explain the reasons behind the hefty premium it is paying in terms of expected synergies. Victor Peiro Peiro, an analyst at Spain's Caja Madrid, said it will hope to avoid the problems that have plagued several European acquisitions recently, where plans have fallen through at the last minute as a result of the low premium paid.

In addition, Energy East, which has a total of 3 million customers, is a good-sized company for Iberdrola to acquire to begin its first foray into utility distribution in the U.S.

Through its purchase of Scottish Power, Iberdrola already has ownership of Portland, Ore.-based PPM Energy, which operates several American wind farms. But to take advantage of the tax incentives available to companies involved in renewable energy, Iberdrola must make its profits in the U.S. With the purchase of Energy East, which is primarily an electricity distributor, Iberdrola hopes to reap the benefits of deals that have already been made.

"Iberdrola is thinking in the medium and long term," said Peiro.

“The transaction enhances our international expansion and consolidates our position as one of the world's leading electricity companies,” said Iberdrola Chairman Ignacio Galan.

Iberdrola has said it will allow Energy East's subsidiaries to continue to operate under their current names. One of the subsidiaries, Central Maine Power, delivers 80% of Maine's electricity. Others include Berkshire Gas, Connecticut Natural Gas (other-otc: CTGSO - news - people ), New York State Electric and Gas (other-otc: NGEGN - news - people ), Rochester Gas and Electric (nyse: RGE - news - people ) and Southern Connecticut Gas.

Iberdrola is not the first European energy company to take advantage of the cheap U.S. dollar. In April Italy's Eni (nyse: E - news - people ) bought Dominion Resource's (nyse: D - news - people ) Gulf of Mexico operations for $4.8 billion.

[WHAT LEGAL COMMITMENT WILL PREVENT THESE EUROPEAN WIND COMPANIES FROM PULLING OUT OF THE UNITED STATES and/or FROM OUTSOURCING U.S. 'GREEN COLLAR' JOBS WHEN THE U.S. DOLLAR GAINS STRENGTH AGAINST THE EURO?? OR HAVE THEY ANTICIPATED and STRATEGIZED HOW TO EXPLOIT FOREIGN CURRENCY/EXCHANGE MARKETS TO ENSURE (HEDGE) AGAINST SUCH AN OUTCOME?? ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/01/business/NA-FEA-FIN-US-Wind-Crossing-the-Atlantic.php

European wind power companies growing in U.S. through acquisitions, expansion

The Associated PressPublished: April 30, 2007

WASHINGTON: New worries about the environment, technology advances and tax break extensions are empowering European wind energy companies to try their luck in the United States.

The U.S. has led the world in installing new wind turbines for the past two years, but it still ranks behind Germany and slightly below Spain in wind power production, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. Now, America's renewed embrace of policies to encourage energy alternatives have led companies with years of experience in Denmark, Germany and Spain to invest in U.S. shores, challenging both the U.S. market leaders and any environmental opposition to building giant turbines.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:eYf0tTOa6YAJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2006_Jan_24/ai_n26734906+Iberdrola+%2B+factories&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Gamesa, Iberdrola to Build Turbine Factories in Portugal

January 24, 2006

Spanish wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa and utility company Iberdrola recently announced plans to build five wind turbine factories in Portugal that will be capable of producing more than 100 turbines annually, with an aggregate capacity of nearly 300 megawatts.

According to Gamesa and Iberdrola, the two companies also plan to submit a bid in response to a wind capacity tender by the Portuguese government. The companies will submit the bid through a consortium that also includes Portuguese concerns Visabeira, Alberto Mesquita, MECI and Galucho.

Gamesa and Iberdrola noted that the planned wind turbine facilities already have an order backlog of eight years. More than half of the turbines produced at the new facilities are expected to be exported. [TO THE UNITED STATES, WE PRESUME??]

Contact: Iberdrola, website http://www.iberdrola.com/ .
(EIN STAFF: 1/18)
COPYRIGHT 2006 BCC ResearchCOPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning