Monday, August 20, 2007

The Global Water Tool

by Joel Makower
August 2007

The Global Water Tool: Making Corporate Water Data a Little Less Dry
World Water Week ends tomorrow, an annual fete of all things H2O. The event, held in Stockholm, is the leading global meeting place for experts from businesses, governments, science, NGOs, academe, and United Nations agencies. This year's event featured the launch on Tuesday of a remarkable Global Water Tool, a free online resource to help companies calculate water consumption and efficiency across a portfolio of facilities around the world.

The tool is the product of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, a Geneva-based organization of some 200 international companies representing 30 countries and 20 industrial sectors. Nearly all of its members have core businesses that depend heavily on water: Alcan and Alcoa (aluminum production), ConocoPhillips and Shell (oil production and refining), Dow and Dupont (chemicals and ag products), Rio Tinto (mining), Lafarge and Holcim (cement), Pepsico and Suez (water and beverages).

Indeed, pretty much all large companies depend heavily on water.

One of the challenges such companies face is assessing the potential risks posed by water's uneven quality and quantity from place to place, and even from time to time in the same place. For companies, the questions are many: How many sites are in extremely water-scarce areas? Which sites are at greatest risk? How that will change in the future? How many employees live in countries that lack access to improved water and sanitation? How many suppliers are in water-scarce areas now, or will be in ten or twenty years?

Few companies can comprehensively answer such questions, leaving them at risk for disruptive water shortages and droughts. A recent study by the Pacific Institute found that while most corporate sustainability reports address freshwater use, "few offer insight into many water-related risks facing businesses. Most reports lack context, quantitative data, supply chain information, and consistent methods and definitions," the institute reported. That's a risk unto itself, akin to being a timber company that isn't measuring and tracking the future of forests.

As I've noted in the past, water issues are of growing concern to business, especially with the rising tide of concern about climate change:
Unlike climate issues, where problems and their solutions have global impacts, water will be seen as a mostly local issue requiring local actions. But, if as experts predict, warmer climates and lowered water tables lead to widespread disruptions, activists and regulators will begin to connect the dots, foisting regulations or global treaties upon the business community.
It's not just the poorest economies where water is a concern. Wealthy nations, too are increasingly facing water stress for their plants, animals, and humans. In Australia, for example, what's been called the worst drought in a thousand years is pitting farmers selling food for export -- a major source of national income -- against households, communities, and industries needing water on the domestic front.

The World Water Tool aims to help companies evaluate and address water risks and impacts in their operations and supply chains in order to minimize risks. The tool is the brainchild of Jan Dell, vice president of CH2M Hill, the global engineering and construction firm, which has been doing water risk analyses for big companies for years. Dell was frustrated at the dearth of readily accessible up-to-date data about water at the local level around the world. Each time her firm did an analysis, they had to go online, pull data from a series of databases maintained by United Nations and other organizations, and put it together in some comprehensible way. It wasn't easy or efficient, even for experienced pros.

With good reason. Gathering data about water for a far-flung operation can be more complex than analyzing something like greenhouse gas emissions, which itself can be overwhemling for many companies. With climate, you simply add up the data from each location to measure your company's footprint; a ton of carbon is the same wherever you go. With water, your company's footprint depends in part on local water conditions. If water is scarce, even the most efficient operation may be too much. When it's plentiful, conservation measures may not make sense. So, you need to understand the local situation to make sound business decisions. For example, in areas with lots of water, it may not be cost effective to put in energy-intensive water recycling facilities.

"It occurred to me a that a tool could be created, and that it shouldn't be a commercial one," Dell recounted to me last week. With the strong backing of CH2M Hill chairman and CEO Ralph R. Peterson, Dell donated countless hours in partnership with WBCSD and its member companies to create a tool that would simplify the data gathering and analysis process -- and to make it free to all users.

The resulting tool has two parts: an input sheet and an online map. The input sheet contains the company's site location and water use information. After entering your company's water use figures, the sheet automatically provides outputs, including water indicators compatible with the Global Reporting Initiative requirements and downloadable metrics charts that demonstrate the company's data combined with both the country and watershed figures.

The online mapping feature enables companies to plot their sites with external water datasets (from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health Organization, and Unicef, among others) and download those locations in a map. These datasets provide several key metrics, including renewable water resource per capita, mean annual relative water stress index, and access to improved sanitation. The tool is linked to Google Earth, which provides spatial viewing of a company's site locations in relation to detailed geographic information, including surface water.

The product of all this is a comparison of your company's water uses with key external water-related data; key water GRI Indicators, inventories, risk and performance metrics and geographic mapping; an assessment of relative water risks in your company's portfolio; and the calculation of water consumption and efficiency data.

It sounds complex, but it's not. The tool is fairly intuitive to use. Says Dell: "It could have been a spaceship, but we really tried to build a bicycle that everyone could ride."

Poring over such calculations and assessments may seem, well, dry, to most of us, but they are nothing short of revolutionary for those inside companies seeking to understand how climate change and other environmental challenges create both risks and opportunities.

Of course, the goal in all of this is for companies to take action, "not just to collect data and make charts," as Dell put it. But one tends to follow the other, and that makes the World Water Tool an essential part of any big company's efforts to quench its thirst for water in a way that is sustainable -- economically, environmentally, and socially.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

The Rise of the Chief Green Officer

The Rise of the Chief Green Officer
Source: John Davies, AMR Research

While solving the world's biggest problems profitably may seem like a stretch goal, industry leaders understand the need for building a sustainable business. Few, if any, question the impact of global warming, all have concerns about energy security, and the role of globally responsible citizenship is taken seriously. They also see unique opportunities for new products and services for the emerging green economy. The intersection of business risk and profitable opportunity is giving rise to a new role in the organization: the chief green officer.

The Journey from Compliance to Sustainability

Global enterprises do not pick up a focus on sustainability overnight. While many companies can rightly point to a long history of good citizenship and responsible stewardship, the impact of a business on the environment has become an increasingly important issue for senior management.

Many of the companies describe a journey of transformation -- a journey some have only recently begun while others started decades ago when their businesses faced critical environmental challenges.

For each of these companies, the journey can be characterized by four major stages:

  • Compliance: Being legally accountable isn't really an option, but as a director at a large chemical company explained, "compliance by itself is extremely expensive. You need to integrate compliance to be a minor piece in a broader framework of sustainability."

  • Personal commitment: In many of the leadership companies we visited, while past and present CEOs may have provided the initial enthusiasm, they also recognized the need for institutionalizing a philosophy of sustainability.

  • Public trust: Earning public trust is a matter of mitigating risk as well as increasing brand attractiveness. While public relations, marketing, and lobbying efforts are sometimes viewed as "greenwashing," executives in leading companies dismiss that label. Their response is typically, "Don't trust us, track us."

  • Sustainable growth: Besides being good community citizens, green business leaders are identifying opportunities to develop new green products as well as technologies that increase energy efficiency, reduce waste, and conserve critical resources.
Flipping the equation requires a change in perspective. While the journey for many enterprises can be described as a movement from compliance to corporate sustainability, the strategy needs to have teeth to be effective.

Enterprises that want to succeed in this new marketplace must integrate "green" thinking into their overall approach to business growth and profitability. One of the world's largest retailers described the change in perspective as follows: "At first, it was all defensive; we created checklists of things to do. But as the program evolved, it became more about being connected as a business in society. It was then that we saw the opportunities for growth as well as the savings from these initiatives."

As part of our work at AMR Research, we've developed the Green Leadership Framework, below. The framework is comprised of two axes of engagement: internal and external.



The lower left quadrant is relegated to issues of compliance. Green efforts driven by regulatory and legal compliance include responses to initiatives such as the following:
  • Facility compliance: ISO 14000 is part of a series of international standards on environmental management.

  • Product compliance: Includes legislation such as Restriction of certain Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE).

  • Health and safety management: Includes OHSAS 18001, an international occupational health and safety management system specification. For many companies, compliance is a collection of tactical initiatives.
Leaders, however, focus on more strategic engagement, both internally and externally. Internal engagement efforts tend to not only comply but embrace required compliance initiatives and view them only as a starting point to drive greater change throughout the organization. Internal initiatives target efficiency improvements with goals set at local sites and measurement systems providing a global rollup of corporate performance.

For many leaders, the eventual measure of success is a zero environmental footprint. In terms of external engagement, compliance initiatives serve to provide greater organizational transparency.

Beyond transparency, enterprises strive for a position of greater public trust. To achieve that, they must approach external engagement with a more proactive approach in terms of communicating their green strategies as companies engage with a wider variety of stakeholders than has been the norm in the past.

This can include creating closer ties with communities where the enterprise does business along with partnerships with non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- organizations that may have been viewed previously as adversaries.

The companies that exist in the green leadership quadrant are characterized by a corporate strategy that leverages both internal and external engagement to create green business opportunities. Initiatives undertaken by these companies are characterized by integrating their internal and external efforts through a cross-functional approach. In terms of supply chain, this includes working closely with suppliers and customers to share best practices and green strategies for success. For new product and service areas, this requires a new level of engagement with customers to create new opportunities for them to be more efficient and green.

Structuring the Organization for Green

In leadership organizations, we have noticed two distinct trends in terms of defining the role of the chief green officer. The single most important trend is the appointment of a chief green officer reporting directly to the CEO. This senior executive has a broad span of influence and control in terms of pursuing the company's green agenda.

Organizationally, the chief green officer oversees both internal and external opportunities. This translates to having direct and indirect reports that oversee environmental health and safety (EH&S), energy, procurement, and regulatory affairs. In addition to these organizations, the chief green officer in many cases is also directly or indirectly responsible for environmental stewardship, corporate communications, strategic partnerships, and product innovation.

While the span of influence for the chief green officer is broad, corporate staff is kept lean. Rather than create a green bureaucracy, this person leads by taking a program management office (PMO) approach. The most important task for the chief green officer is to work with the management team to set the overall corporate strategy.

Once the corporate strategy is set, and the requisite goals and metrics established, the chief green officer works with various cross-functional groups within the organization to identify opportunities. His or her staff is then responsible for finding the disconnects within the business and identifying gaps where intervention is required. A common approach by many companies is to employ lean or Six Sigma expertise to address issues, disbanding the team once success is achieved.

As the role of the chief green officer becomes more well-defined, senior management is looking for an agenda that positions their company for success in the future along with results today. There are three key items on this his or her agenda:
  • Reduce environmental footprint

  • Engagement with diverse stakeholders

  • Discover new revenue opportunities
Toward a Zero Environmental Footprint

Companies are exploring a large number of initiatives to reduce their environmental footprint. These include purchasing a higher percentage of renewables (such as solar, wind, and cogeneration) for their energy portfolio. This must be balanced by investment opportunities in efficiency and conservation. The effects of these initiatives are not only bottom-line savings, but potentially new revenue opportunities as new commodities markets emerge for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Green leaders aren't debating the issue of global warming. In fact, many have outpaced the Kyoto Protocol to post inspiring results.
  • Since 1990, DuPont has reduced global greenhouse gas emissions measured as CO2 equivalents by 72%.

  • IBM has reduced emissions 39% on 1990 levels by 2005 and saved over $800M.

  • 3M has achieved a 37% reduction in worldwide emissions between 1990 and 2004.
These efforts not only derive immediate benefits for the company and the communities they serve, but provide a long-term advantage when new commodities markets become mainstream.

Engagement with Diverse Stakeholders

Attaining a green leadership position also requires engaging with a broad constituency of stakeholders, including investors, clients, suppliers, and employees. Of an enterprise's traditional stakeholders, the greatest impact in the next five years will be on their supply base as chief green officers establish requirements for not only packaging and "greener" products, but also results by suppliers in lessening their impact on the environment.

Chief green officers will also engage more directly with governmental bodies and NGOs. This can make for interesting alliances:
  • The Nature Conservancy and Xerox: Together these organizations are defining third-party forest certification standards to ensure that the company's paper is derived from responsibly managed forests, identifying best forest biodiversity management practices, and communicating them broadly with forest managers, paper suppliers, and others.

  • Environmental Defense and DuPont: Both enterprises have formed a partnership to develop a framework for the responsible development, production, use, and disposal of nanoscale materials. The result will help ensure that nanotechnology's benefits are maximized while the potential risks are effectively assessed and managed.

  • MTV and Wal-Mart: These groups have partnered for "Everyday Green," a unique joint initiative designed to promote sustainability and demonstrate to consumers how to work environmentally-friendly products into their lives.


Discovering New Revenue Opportunities

Finally, the chief green officer will be on a relentless search for new green products and services. This includes coordination between client advocacy boards and internal product development organizations as well as evaluating M&A opportunities.

Several firms have announced aggressive targets to grow annual revenue from products that create energy efficiency and/or significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions reductions for their customers. Opportunities aren't limited to physical products, though. Financial services companies are financing alternative energy projects while others look to complement green products with new service offerings.

The Rewards of Going Green

Companies progressing toward a role of green leadership are reaping the rewards that this new perspective is bringing to their companies. Early movers are reporting long-term advantages, both in cost savings as well as new revenue opportunities. But the rewards extend well beyond the walls of the company to the response from the communities they serve, including the financial community.

Financial analysts and investors are embracing strategies that correlate environmental performance with a firm's financial performance, in part that environmental performance is a proxy for financial performance. One example of this is Innovest's Carbon Disclosure Project, which rates companies in terms of their environmental impact. Innovest has developed this ranking on behalf of 155 institutional investors that have assets under management of $21T.

AMR Research predicts that the next few years are critical for manufacturers, retailers, financial services firms, and others as they establish their roadmap toward green leadership. While early adopters are already reaping rewards, there are still significant opportunities for a new generation of chief green officers.

The Rise of the Chief Green Officer

The Rise of the Chief Green Officer
Source: John Davies, AMR Research

While solving the world's biggest problems profitably may seem like a stretch goal, industry leaders understand the need for building a sustainable business. Few, if any, question the impact of global warming, all have concerns about energy security, and the role of globally responsible citizenship is taken seriously. They also see unique opportunities for new products and services for the emerging green economy. The intersection of business risk and profitable opportunity is giving rise to a new role in the organization: the chief green officer.

The Journey from Compliance to Sustainability

Global enterprises do not pick up a focus on sustainability overnight. While many companies can rightly point to a long history of good citizenship and responsible stewardship, the impact of a business on the environment has become an increasingly important issue for senior management.

Many of the companies describe a journey of transformation -- a journey some have only recently begun while others started decades ago when their businesses faced critical environmental challenges.

For each of these companies, the journey can be characterized by four major stages:

  • Compliance: Being legally accountable isn't really an option, but as a director at a large chemical company explained, "compliance by itself is extremely expensive. You need to integrate compliance to be a minor piece in a broader framework of sustainability."

  • Personal commitment: In many of the leadership companies we visited, while past and present CEOs may have provided the initial enthusiasm, they also recognized the need for institutionalizing a philosophy of sustainability.

  • Public trust: Earning public trust is a matter of mitigating risk as well as increasing brand attractiveness. While public relations, marketing, and lobbying efforts are sometimes viewed as "greenwashing," executives in leading companies dismiss that label. Their response is typically, "Don't trust us, track us."

  • Sustainable growth: Besides being good community citizens, green business leaders are identifying opportunities to develop new green products as well as technologies that increase energy efficiency, reduce waste, and conserve critical resources.
Flipping the equation requires a change in perspective. While the journey for many enterprises can be described as a movement from compliance to corporate sustainability, the strategy needs to have teeth to be effective.

Enterprises that want to succeed in this new marketplace must integrate "green" thinking into their overall approach to business growth and profitability. One of the world's largest retailers described the change in perspective as follows: "At first, it was all defensive; we created checklists of things to do. But as the program evolved, it became more about being connected as a business in society. It was then that we saw the opportunities for growth as well as the savings from these initiatives."

As part of our work at AMR Research, we've developed the Green Leadership Framework, below. The framework is comprised of two axes of engagement: internal and external.



The lower left quadrant is relegated to issues of compliance. Green efforts driven by regulatory and legal compliance include responses to initiatives such as the following:
  • Facility compliance: ISO 14000 is part of a series of international standards on environmental management.

  • Product compliance: Includes legislation such as Restriction of certain Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE).

  • Health and safety management: Includes OHSAS 18001, an international occupational health and safety management system specification. For many companies, compliance is a collection of tactical initiatives.
Leaders, however, focus on more strategic engagement, both internally and externally. Internal engagement efforts tend to not only comply but embrace required compliance initiatives and view them only as a starting point to drive greater change throughout the organization. Internal initiatives target efficiency improvements with goals set at local sites and measurement systems providing a global rollup of corporate performance.

For many leaders, the eventual measure of success is a zero environmental footprint. In terms of external engagement, compliance initiatives serve to provide greater organizational transparency.

Beyond transparency, enterprises strive for a position of greater public trust. To achieve that, they must approach external engagement with a more proactive approach in terms of communicating their green strategies as companies engage with a wider variety of stakeholders than has been the norm in the past.

This can include creating closer ties with communities where the enterprise does business along with partnerships with non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- organizations that may have been viewed previously as adversaries.

The companies that exist in the green leadership quadrant are characterized by a corporate strategy that leverages both internal and external engagement to create green business opportunities. Initiatives undertaken by these companies are characterized by integrating their internal and external efforts through a cross-functional approach. In terms of supply chain, this includes working closely with suppliers and customers to share best practices and green strategies for success. For new product and service areas, this requires a new level of engagement with customers to create new opportunities for them to be more efficient and green.

Structuring the Organization for Green

In leadership organizations, we have noticed two distinct trends in terms of defining the role of the chief green officer. The single most important trend is the appointment of a chief green officer reporting directly to the CEO. This senior executive has a broad span of influence and control in terms of pursuing the company's green agenda.

Organizationally, the chief green officer oversees both internal and external opportunities. This translates to having direct and indirect reports that oversee environmental health and safety (EH&S), energy, procurement, and regulatory affairs. In addition to these organizations, the chief green officer in many cases is also directly or indirectly responsible for environmental stewardship, corporate communications, strategic partnerships, and product innovation.

While the span of influence for the chief green officer is broad, corporate staff is kept lean. Rather than create a green bureaucracy, this person leads by taking a program management office (PMO) approach. The most important task for the chief green officer is to work with the management team to set the overall corporate strategy.

Once the corporate strategy is set, and the requisite goals and metrics established, the chief green officer works with various cross-functional groups within the organization to identify opportunities. His or her staff is then responsible for finding the disconnects within the business and identifying gaps where intervention is required. A common approach by many companies is to employ lean or Six Sigma expertise to address issues, disbanding the team once success is achieved.

As the role of the chief green officer becomes more well-defined, senior management is looking for an agenda that positions their company for success in the future along with results today. There are three key items on this his or her agenda:
  • Reduce environmental footprint

  • Engagement with diverse stakeholders

  • Discover new revenue opportunities
Toward a Zero Environmental Footprint

Companies are exploring a large number of initiatives to reduce their environmental footprint. These include purchasing a higher percentage of renewables (such as solar, wind, and cogeneration) for their energy portfolio. This must be balanced by investment opportunities in efficiency and conservation. The effects of these initiatives are not only bottom-line savings, but potentially new revenue opportunities as new commodities markets emerge for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Green leaders aren't debating the issue of global warming. In fact, many have outpaced the Kyoto Protocol to post inspiring results.
  • Since 1990, DuPont has reduced global greenhouse gas emissions measured as CO2 equivalents by 72%.

  • IBM has reduced emissions 39% on 1990 levels by 2005 and saved over $800M.

  • 3M has achieved a 37% reduction in worldwide emissions between 1990 and 2004.
These efforts not only derive immediate benefits for the company and the communities they serve, but provide a long-term advantage when new commodities markets become mainstream.

Engagement with Diverse Stakeholders

Attaining a green leadership position also requires engaging with a broad constituency of stakeholders, including investors, clients, suppliers, and employees. Of an enterprise's traditional stakeholders, the greatest impact in the next five years will be on their supply base as chief green officers establish requirements for not only packaging and "greener" products, but also results by suppliers in lessening their impact on the environment.

Chief green officers will also engage more directly with governmental bodies and NGOs. This can make for interesting alliances:
  • The Nature Conservancy and Xerox: Together these organizations are defining third-party forest certification standards to ensure that the company's paper is derived from responsibly managed forests, identifying best forest biodiversity management practices, and communicating them broadly with forest managers, paper suppliers, and others.

  • Environmental Defense and DuPont: Both enterprises have formed a partnership to develop a framework for the responsible development, production, use, and disposal of nanoscale materials. The result will help ensure that nanotechnology's benefits are maximized while the potential risks are effectively assessed and managed.

  • MTV and Wal-Mart: These groups have partnered for "Everyday Green," a unique joint initiative designed to promote sustainability and demonstrate to consumers how to work environmentally-friendly products into their lives.


Discovering New Revenue Opportunities

Finally, the chief green officer will be on a relentless search for new green products and services. This includes coordination between client advocacy boards and internal product development organizations as well as evaluating M&A opportunities.

Several firms have announced aggressive targets to grow annual revenue from products that create energy efficiency and/or significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions reductions for their customers. Opportunities aren't limited to physical products, though. Financial services companies are financing alternative energy projects while others look to complement green products with new service offerings.

The Rewards of Going Green

Companies progressing toward a role of green leadership are reaping the rewards that this new perspective is bringing to their companies. Early movers are reporting long-term advantages, both in cost savings as well as new revenue opportunities. But the rewards extend well beyond the walls of the company to the response from the communities they serve, including the financial community.

Financial analysts and investors are embracing strategies that correlate environmental performance with a firm's financial performance, in part that environmental performance is a proxy for financial performance. One example of this is Innovest's Carbon Disclosure Project, which rates companies in terms of their environmental impact. Innovest has developed this ranking on behalf of 155 institutional investors that have assets under management of $21T.

AMR Research predicts that the next few years are critical for manufacturers, retailers, financial services firms, and others as they establish their roadmap toward green leadership. While early adopters are already reaping rewards, there are still significant opportunities for a new generation of chief green officers.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Private Sector to the Rescue

I've mentioned before that the private sector will help initiate a green revolution. The same venture capitalists and pioneering business people that fueled the dot com boom will shift their resources toward creating, developing, and marketing environmentally friendly goods and services. The entrepreneurial spirit is a primary factor to developing green business, but inject the fact that such ventures help reduce pollution and global warming gasses, and you get a zeal that further motivates environmentally concerned pioneers.

One of these pioneering companies, Tesla Motors, has developed an electric roadster that can compete with other vehicles in its class. The roadster cranks out 248 horse power which is comparable to a V6 Altima, goes 0 to 60 in four seconds, Top speed is 130 mph, and can go 200 miles on a full charge. For $350 you can purchase a mobile charging system that allows you to plug the car into a standard power outlet, so you can power up while you sleep: and the cost to operate the all electric roadster - 2 cents per mile. Not a bad deal. Hey, even former Standard Oil executive Condi Rice likes it.
http://www.teslamotors.com

~Moe

By Sebastian Blanco:

Condi Rice and Aussie minister ride a Tesla

Say, who's that in one of the Tesla Roadster prototypes? Why, it's none other than Tesla sales manager Tom O'Leary. Oh, you mean on the left? That's U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice out at Moffett Field, California over last week. Rice was meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and the two took some trips on the tarmac (up to 110 mph. Jealous yet?) Here's the official transcript of their comments:

Secretary Rice: Well, the Foreign Minister and I have just gone in what felt like a little rocket ship. We went down the runway there. We've been looking at some of the ways that energy efficiency can improve our ability to get off of hydrocarbons but also to improve the environment and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is an issue of great concern to me and to Foreign Minister Downer as well. So we're delighted to be here at this great company. And we expect to see great things from Tesla, but it was a wonderful to meet with the engineers, to meet with the founder, but it was especially wonderful to ride in the car. (Laughter.)

Foreign Minister Downer: I can only repeat all of that. Fantastic car. We got it up to 110 miles an hour. It's entirely legal on an airport here. (Laughter.) And great acceleration, naught to 60 miles an hour in four seconds is pretty breathtaking, so a genuine sports car. And an electric car like this has great environmental advantages, including being quiet, actually. The silence of the car is extraordinary. But maybe for those who love the tone of the Ferrari engine or whatever it is, they'll miss that with electric cars, but very much the technology of the future and exciting to see. And I think this company has done incredibly well with private venture capital. It's not a government initiative. It's a private initiative and it's great to see the private sector coming up with solutions like this to some of our environmental problems.

I love the reflections of all the media (and, presumably, security) folks we can see in the shiny front fender bumper.

[Source: State Department, h/t to Linton]

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

NYC's taxi fleet going green by 2012

NY already has electric hybrid buses. Bloomberg is suggesting that a carbon production fee to motorists entering Manhattan could be initiated. Some cities like London are charging congestion fees to motorists. The initiative was initially controversial, but it passed. The result was public transit use went up 30%. London, like New York, has good public transit infrastructure to aggressively implement such environmentally friendly measures, but California cities greatly lack transportation alternatives.

By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - The city's yellow taxi fleet will go entirely hybrid within five years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Tuesday.

"There's an awful lot of taxicabs on the streets of New York City," Bloomberg said. "These cars just sit there in traffic sometimes, belching fumes.

"This does a lot less. It's a lot better for all of us," he said of the hybrid plan.

Nearly 400 fuel-efficient hybrids have been tested in the city's taxi fleet over the past 18 months, with models including the Toyota Prius, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, the Lexus RX 400h and the Ford Escape.

Under Bloomberg's plan, that number will increase to 1,000 by October 2008, then will grow by about 20 percent each year until 2012, when every yellow cab — currently numbering 13,000 — will be a hybrid.

Hybrid vehicles run on a combination of gasoline and electricity, emitting less exhaust and achieving higher gas mileage per gallon.

The standard yellow cab vehicle, the Ford Crown Victoria, gets 14 miles per gallon. In contrast, the Ford Escape taxis get 36 miles per gallon.

In addition to making the yellow cab brigade entirely green within five years, the city will require all new vehicles entering the fleet after October 2008 to achieve a minimum of 25 miles per gallon. A year later, all new vehicles must get 30 miles per gallon and be hybrid. Bloomberg made the announcement on NBC's "Today" show.

Hybrid vehicles are typically more expensive, but the city said the increase in fuel efficiency will save taxi operators more than $10,000 per year. Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) said it would donate 10 hybrid Ford Escapes for the city's effort.

Shifting the taxi fleet to hybrids is part of Bloomberg's wider sustainability plan for the city, which includes a goal of a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. Part of the plan could include congestion pricing for drivers entering some of the busiest parts of Manhattan.

Turning over the taxi fleet by 2012 is not an impossible goal. The life of a New York City taxi is typically about three to five years; the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission requires all vehicles to be retired within a certain time frame.

Fernando Mateo, president of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers, an advocacy trade group, applauded the city's effort to go green.

"In the short term, they're going to have to spend more money, but in the long run they will save money," he said. "We support getting more hybrids on the road."

The government does not own the city's yellow cabs, but sells licenses to individual drivers and operators, who must purchase their own vehicles that meet the specifications of the Taxi and Limousine Commission. The agency serves as the regulating and licensing authority for all vehicles per hire in the city.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Fourteen New Companies Join U.S. Climate Change Fight

The United States Climate Action Partnership announced today that it has added 14 new members to its roster, doubling the size of the coalition.

The new members of the group include American International Group (AIG), Alcan, Boston Scientific, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, PepsiCo, Shell and Siemens, along with The Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation.

The coalition, which continues to broaden and deepen its membership, brings together key sectors of the economy -- from energy, transportation, agriculture and technology to telecommunications, infrastructure and financial services -- with environmental and conservation leaders.

USCAP's main goal is to urge the federal government to immediately pass mandatory legislation to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

With its new members, USCAP companies now have total revenues of $1.7 trillion, a collective workforce of more than 2 million and operations in all 50 states; the group also has a combined market capitalization of more than $1.9 trillion.

The two new non-governmental organizations in USCAP, The Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Federation, have more than two million members worldwide, and represent America's environmental interests and its conservation traditions.

In January, USCAP issued a report that outlined principles and recommendations for a policy framework on climate change. The report, "A Call for Action," laid out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to slowing and then reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Today's new members join the 13 founding members of USCAP: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, PG&E, and PNM Resources, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change and World Resources Institute.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Bush Interference with Climate Change Science

Whistleblower Group Details Bush Interference with Climate Change Science

The Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower and watchdog group in DC, released a report (.pdf) today detailing a top-down government campaign to suppress climate change research that deviated from policy positions within the Bush administration. In particular, the administration tried to bury research that showed human activity contributes to global warming and stronger storms.

The GAP report, "Redacting the Science of Climate Change," took a year to assemble and relies on information from dozens of interviews and thousands of FOIA disclosures, internal documents and public records. It illustrates an organized and secretive White House effort beginning in 2001 to restrict scientists' ability to accurately communicate their research results to the media, the public and Congress. Using low-level proxies, the administration altered press releases, muzzled scientists who spoke openly and, frequently, routed requests for information about sensitive research to the White House. In the report, GAP focuses on NOAA but includes information on similar tampering at NASA and the EPA.

Although evidence of the Bush administration playing politics with climate change science has trickled out in the media for some time, the GAP report collects and synthesizes many of the more egregious offenses. Tarek Maassarani, the report's author, will testify later today in front of a House Science Committee hearing on political interference in science research (check back here for more this afternoon).

In recent months, the White House, facing a backlash over its heavy handed treatment of government scientists, has claimed that it always supported the view that global warming is real and humans contribute to the problem. President Bush has also morphed into an ethanol fiend, popping up at seven photo ops already this year, sometimes in a white lab coat, to pump corn fuel. When he ran for president, Bush mocked hybrid vehicles.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

E-Waste - 40 Million Tons/Year

The environmental impacts of information technology is back in the news, as companies, communities, activists, and others seek solutions to the vexing problems of their energy use, hazardous ingredients, and "e-waste." Last week, Wal-Mart (They don't get "good guy" status just yet) announced it would begin grading electronics suppliers on a range of environmental criteria, including energy efficiency, durability, upgradability, end-of-life solutions, and packaging. Beginning next year, the "scorecards" filled out by electronics manufacturers will be made available to Wal-Mart's and Sam Club's U.S. customers.

Also lasts week, a global public-private partnership was launched to reduce the nearly 40 million tons of e-waste produced globally each year that ends up in China, India, and other developing countries. The goals of the initiative, called Solving the E-Waste Problem (StEP), is to standardize e-waste recycling processes globally, extend the life of products and markets for their reuse, and harmonize world legislative and policy approaches on e-waste.

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=34715

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Scientists Offer Climate Plan to U.N.

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - To head off the worst of climate change, governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean-energy research and enforce sharp rollbacks in fossil-fuel emissions, an expert scientific panel reported to the United Nations on Tuesday.

The U.N. itself must better prepare to help tens of millions of "environmental refugees," the group said, and authorities everywhere should discourage new building on land less than one meter - 39 inches - above sea level.

The 166-page report, two years in the making, forecasts a turbulent 21st century of rising seas, spreading drought and disease, weather extremes, and damage to farming, forests, fisheries and other economic areas.

"The challenge of halting climate change is one to which civilization must rise," said the panel of 18 scientists from 11 nations, whose work was conducted at U.N. request and sponsored by the private United Nations Foundation and the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society.

Their dozens of recommendations about what to do to mitigate and adapt to global warming come just three weeks after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an authoritative U.N. network of 2,000 scientists, made headlines with its latest assessment of climate science.

The IPCC expressed its greatest confidence yet that global warming is being caused largely by the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, mostly from man's burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. If nothing's done, it said, global temperatures could rise as much as 11 degrees by 2100.

Temperatures rose an average 1.3 degrees over the past 100 years. The scientists who produced Tuesday's report said further rises this century should be limited to about 3.6 degrees, or the world risks crossing a climate "tipping point" that could produce "intolerable impacts on human well-being."

They said global carbon dioxide emissions should be leveled off by 2015-2020, and then cut back to less than one-third that level by 2100 - via a vast transformation of global energy systems, toward greater efficiency, away from fossil fuels and toward biofuels, solar and wind energy and other renewable sources of energy.

That changeover would be spurred by heavy "carbon taxes" or "cap-and-trade" systems, whereby industries' emissions are capped by governments, and more efficient companies can sell unused allowances to less efficient ones.

Such schemes - already in use in Europe under the Kyoto Protocol climate pact - have been proposed in Congress, but are opposed by the Bush administration, which rejects Kyoto.

The White House points to spending of almost $3 billion a year on energy-technology research as its major contribution to combatting climate change. But the U.N. experts panel said such research worldwide is badly underfunded, and requires a tripling or quadrupling of spending, to $45 billion or $60 billion a year.

Specialists say governments particularly should step up research into carbon capture and sequestration - technology to capture carbon dioxide in power-plant emissions and store it underground or underwater. In fact, the experts panel urged governments to immediately ban all new coal-fired power plants except those designed for eventual retrofitting of sequestration technology.

Among its wide-ranging list of recommendations, Tuesday's report also called on U.N. agencies to study the need for an internationally accepted definition of "environmental refugee," since treaties recognize only political refugees as eligible for aid from the U.N. refugee agency.

The report expressed "special concern" that international capacity could be overwhelmed by coastal refugees fleeing seas rising as they expand from heat and melted land ice. Scientists estimate a sea-level rise of one meter, or 39 inches, by 2100 - conceivable in IPCC projections - would displace roughly 130 million people worldwide.

The U.N. panel was led by biodiversity expert Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden director and past president of Sigma Xi, and University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum.

---

On the Web: http://www.unfoundation.org/staging/seg/

Thursday, January 25, 2007

U.N. climate report will shock the world

NTERVIEW-U.N. climate report will shock the world -chairman
25 Jan 2007 12:03:22 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Nita Bhalla NEW DELHI, Jan 25 (Reuters) - A forthcoming U.N. report on climate change will provide the most credible evidence yet of a human link to global warming and hopefully shock the world into taking more action, the panel's chairman said on Thursday.

"There are a lot of signs and evidence in this report which clearly establish not only the fact that climate change is taking place, but also that it really is human activity that is influencing that change," R.K. Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, told Reuters.The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release on Feb. 2 in Paris, draws on research by 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries and has taken six years to compile.

"I hope this report will shock people, governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for what it's worth." The IPCC will say it is at least 90 percent sure than human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are to blame for global warming over the past 50 years, sources say.

The new report is likely to foresee a rise in temperatures of 2 to 4.5 Celcius (3.6-8.1 Fahrenheit) this century, with about 3 Celcius (5.4F) most likely. FREAK WEATHER Pachauri told Reuters in an interview the findings of the report, which is the fourth of its kind, will be "far more serious and much more a matter of concern" than previous reports.There is more evidence around the world that greenhouse emissions are causing temperature increases, sea level rises, the melting of glaciers, freak weather phenomena and the problems of water availability, said Pachauri.

"For example, the Arctic is clearly melting at faster rates than other regions of the world," he said. "The figures are in the report and it is much faster than what was anticipated." "The impacts are clearly very serious for some vulnerable parts of the world. Small island states are clearly very vulnerable and parts of South Asia are vulnerable in respect of droughts and floods and also the melting of the glaciers."

Pachauri, also director of India's top environment centre, the Energy and Research Institute, said there was more awareness of climate change around the world today than ever before and applauded Europe and Japan for their efforts. He said scepticism about the linkages between human activities and climate change was dwindling as more evidence came to light. "I think the sceptics on climate change will continue, but the good news is that their numbers and their effectiveness is on the decline," Pachauri said.

"The gaps in knowledge will always be there in science but you use your judgement and that's what good policy is all about ... If you take action, the benefit is that you might actually be minimising the harmful impacts of global warming."

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Evangelical, Scientific Leaders Unite

'Unprecedented:' Evangelical, scientific leaders unite to respond to climate change problems and defend 'life on earth'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday January 17, 2007

A unique partnership was introduced at a Washington news conference today, as a dozen evangelical and scientific leaders announced a new joint effort to protect the environment and defend "life on earth," according to a press release received by RAW STORY.

The coalition's leaders "shared concerns about human-caused threats to Creation -- including climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, species extinction, the spread of human infectious diseases, and other dangers to the well-being of societies."

An "Urgent Call to Action" statement signed by twenty-eight members of the coalition was sent off to President George W. Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, congressional leaders from both parties, and national evangelical and scientific organizations, urging "fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies required to address these worsening problems before it is too late."

"Business as usual cannot continue yet one more day," the statement declares.

Pledging to "work together toward a responsible care for Creation and call with one voice," the group is appealing "to the religious, scientific, business, political and educational arenas to join them in this historic initiative."

"There is no such thing as a Republican or Democrat, a liberal or conservative, a religious or secular environment," Nobel laureate Dr. Eric Chivian, Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, said in the statement. "We all breathe the same air and drink the same water. Scientists and evangelicals share a deep moral commitment to preserve this precious gift we have all been given."

Rev. Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, added, "Great scientists are people of imagination. So are people of great faith. We dare to imagine a world in which science and religion cooperate, minimizing our differences about how Creation got started, to work together to reverse its degradation. We will not allow it to be progressively destroyed by human folly."

The coalition hopes to meet with bipartisan Congressional leaders "to inform them of this unprecedented effort and encourage their attention to environmental issues." A "Summit on the Creation" is also planned, as well as "outreach tools, such as a Creation Care Bible study guide and environmental curricula."

"Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action," the group states.

National Public Radio has a pdf of the evangelical "Call to Action" which can be accessed at this link.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

EU plans 'industrial revolution'

The European Commission has urged its members to sign up to an unprecedented common energy policy, unveiling a plan to diversify the bloc's energy sources.

A windmill cafe seen in front of the cooling towers of a nuclear power plant in Doel, Belgium (file picture)
The EU wants a radical shift towards renewable energy
Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said it was time for a "post-industrial revolution" which would see Europe slash greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020.

But political as well as environmental concerns should spur change, he noted.

EU vulnerability as an oil importer was thrown into sharp relief this week when Russia's row with Belarus hit supplies.

Binding targets

This is the first step towards a common energy policy, says the BBC's Europe editor Mark Mardell.

There are three central pillars to the proposed integrated EU energy policy.

  • A true internal energy market
  • Accelerating the shift to low-carbon energy
  • Energy efficiency through the 20% target by 2020

Graph of EU energy use

In addition to the 20% of all EU energy that should come from renewable power by 2020, 10% of vehicle fuel should come from biofuels, said EU energy chief Andris Piebalgs.

The EU wants to make these targets to be binding for the first time, he said.

It also wants to make sure all new power stations are carbon neutral in 13 years - they should be built in such a way that carbon can be captured and buried - as well as ensuring there is a big increase in renewable power like wind and wave energy.

"We need new policies to face a new reality - policies which maintain Europe's competitiveness, protect our environment and make our energy supplies more secure," said Mr Barroso.

"Europe must lead the world into a new, or maybe one should say post-industrial revolution - the development of a low-carbon economy."

Without such investment and energy efficiency measures, the EU report predicts that EU energy imports will rise from 50% of consumption to 65% by 2030, requiring increased reliance on potentially unpredictable sources.

Internal market

Although energy has been a driving factor of the EU, which was born as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, policy has on the whole remained a national issue.

The EU wants to fully open up the existing energy market to enable half a billion citizens to get their electricity or gas from anywhere else in Europe.

Mr Barroso proposed stopping power generation and power supply being owned by the same company, which is very controversial in France and Germany.

"We have two points of disagreement with the commission, which are the possible eventual abolition of controlled prices and the question of separating asset ownership by integrated operators," AFP cited an official source at the French industry ministry as saying.

Meanwhile the commission's proposal to reduce emissions was lambasted by one environmental pressure group.

"If the EU is serious about tackling climate change it must make far greater cuts in its carbon dioxide emissions. The proposed 20% cut does not demonstrate any intention to stay below the two degree limit," Catherine Pearce, the group's international climate co-ordinator, said.

The package of measures will have to be approved by European governments before it can come into force.

EU leaders will debate the commission's proposals at a summit in March.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Supreme Court battle considers regulation of greenhouse gases

Supreme Court battle considers regulation of greenhouse gases

By Michael Doyle

McClatchy Newspapers

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's hottest environmental case of the year pits California against Texas.

It's also Washington state vs. Idaho, scientists vs. car dealers and, it may seem, the world against the White House, as the justices on Wednesday consider a crucial question in the effort to combat global warming.

The question is this: Can the federal government regulate the so-called greenhouse gases many experts blame for rising global temperatures? The Bush administration says no. California, Massachusetts, Washington, 15 other states and their allies insist otherwise. The final answer is now up to the court's nine justices.

"This is a global problem," California Secretary for Environmental Protection Linda Adams said Tuesday, "and I think everyone agrees that a global problem needs a global solution."

The high stakes in Wednesday's hour-long oral arguments will be drawing plenty of courtroom kibitzers. Already, groups ranging from Alaskan tribes to the National Automobile Dealers Association have staked out sides.

The decision could be cast very narrowly next year. Or it could spur officials trying to cut the roughly 500 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted annually by U.S. cars, trucks and other vehicles.

"A favorable ruling would reinforce our authority to move forward on regulations," Adams said.

California wants federal approval for setting strict new emissions standards on cars and light trucks. The state's federal waiver request may be bolstered by the court's eventual ruling in the case formally known as Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. California is also moving ahead unilaterally in controlling stationary sources of greenhouse gases.

Neither side disputes that the Earth is getting hotter. The Earth's average surface temperature is now warming at the rate of about 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit per century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 10 warmest years in the past century have all taken place since 1990.

The law and the politics are trickier. So is some of the science.

The Bush administration stresses in legal briefs the "substantial debate and uncertainties" surrounding cause and effect. Prominent climate scientists including David Battisti and John M. Wallace from the University of Washington retort that all reasonable doubt has evaporated.

"Time is of the essence, because delay in greenhouse gas regulation will only accelerate global climate change," Battisti and Wallace argue in legal filings.

In 1999, environmentalists petitioned the EPA to regulate the carbon dioxide emitted from new cars and trucks. Carbon dioxide is one of the gases thought to trap the Earth's heat.

The Bush administration refused. After weighing some 50,000 public comments, the EPA concluded that the Clean Air Act doesn't give it the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

"The only provisions of the Act that specifically mention carbon dioxide or `global warming' are expressly non-regulatory in nature," the administration argues in its legal brief.

The administration further contends that the term "air pollution" doesn't encompass global climate change. By contrast, the Clinton administration's EPA had twice concluded the Clean Air Act empowered federal officials to regulate greenhouse gases - if they wanted to.

The energy-producing states siding with the Bush administration fear the burdens of new nationwide greenhouse gas controls.

National rules "for carbon dioxide would result in states having to attain an air quality standard but lacking the power to affect many of the emission sources that are contributing to their lack of attainment," Alaska, Idaho, Texas and seven other states argue in their legal brief.

The court could punt, by ruling narrowly that states such as Massachusetts and California lack the legal standing to sue. The Bush administration proposes this option as a first line of attack, arguing that the states can't prove they have suffered harm from the EPA's refusal to regulate.

Alternatively, the court could forthrightly answer whether the EPA can regulate greenhouse gases. Even a "yes" answer, though, wouldn't specify what those regulations must look like.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Stop Junk Mail, Clean up Environment

A Dime a day.
According to the GreenDimes (http://www.greendimes.com/index.html?src=mkt&partner=idealbite1106) school of thought. The concept is simple: for a dime a day, the company will stop your paper junk mail and plant a tree for you each month. So, for the cost of fishing between your couch cushions every once in a while, you get the pleasure of avoiding paper spam while making the air and waterways a little cleaner for all of us. Considering that collectively in the US, one year's junk mail could fill 420,000 dump trucks, it's worth collecting those dimes.
Company Background
GreenDimes head honcho Pankaj Shah hates junk mail (like you Biters). The day he received two different credit card offers from the same company, enough was enough... he took matters into his own hands and started GreenDimes. The company's service is unique because they continually contact direct mail companies to make sure you stay off their lists. "Combining social good and capitalism has been on my mind for years," says Shah. "This is about more than junk mail, it's about helping people take control of their environmental footprint in a measurable way." Judging by the numbers, it's already working, with over 3,000 lbs of junk mail stopped in GreenDimes' first month of operation.
Why Care?
  • In its first month, GreenDimes stopped 3,220 lbs of junk mail and saved 11,272 gallons of water.
  • In that same month, the company planted more than 4,000 trees with the non-profit Trees for the Future.
  • Protects your identity. Getting off junk mail lists reduces the chances of someone stealing it.
  • Contacts more direct mail companies than other services, making sure you'll receive a lot fewer catalog and credit card offers.
  • Saves you the hassle of doing it yourself.
  • Uses recycled paper at their HQ.
  • Their gift memberships make prime holiday presents.
Keeping It Real
Since new direct mail companies are popping up all the time, junk mail can sometimes slip through (and researching how to stop it can take time). Additionally, political mailers aren't blocked, and as we saw from last week's election, those can get pretty overwhelming.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Bush’s Chernobyl economy; hard times are on the way

You want a credible snap shot of the future? Read this. Looks like if you purchase commodity stocks - oil, gold, silver, copper etc., you will make money because commodity movement follows oil prices. If we start hitting hard economic times, you may want to see where the money is going. Will there be blood on the streets? Not sure in a literal sense but economically speaking many may suffer from a heavy correction.

Strong investment areas for the next ten years:

Commodity stocks - oil, silver, gold etc.
Chinese and Indians, Chindians, have booming populations, increasing middle class, and a higher demand for consumer products. Resources are required to create more goods, and to build infrastructure. Business will be good for metal mines.

Real Estate - Although, don't buy overvalued property
The US population will continue to grow and people will always require housing.

Alternative energy/Green technology stocks
As oil and gas prices continue to increase, alternative technologies will be en vogue. Don't assume the latest drop in oil prices will be the norm.

ARTICLE
***********************************************************

Bush’s Chernobyl economy; hard times are on the way

By Mike Whitney
Online Journal Contributing Writer


In the next few months, a financial crisis will arise somewhere in the world which will jolt the American economy and trigger a swift and precipitous decline in the value of the dollar.

This is not speculation; it will happen and there is nothing that the Bush administration can do to stop it.

All of the traditional supports for the dollar have been removed by a shrinking economy, a massive $800 billion account deficit, dramatic increases in the money supply, and the reckless manipulation of interest rates.

Now, the noose is tightening. Our foreign trading partners can see that we are bobbing in an ocean of red ink and are refusing to buy back our debt in the form of US Treasuries. This is a death sentence for the dollar. It means that in a matter of months the once-mighty greenback will crash through the floor and free-fall through open space.

Mike Swanson of the WallStreetWindow explains the worrisome details related to last month’s trade deficit, “Just a few days ago the US Treasury reported that the net capital inflows from the rest of the world into the US fell for a 6th month in a row. Private from abroad fell to $34.7 billion in August and from $72.9 billion in July. Asian central banks made up for the shortfall. If they hadn’t the current account deficit would have exploded. The NY Times quoted Ashraf Laidi, a currency analyst at MG Financial Group as saying, 'foreign central banks saved the dollar from disaster. The stability of the bond market is at thee mercy of Asian purchases of US Treasuries.'”

Swanson poses an interesting theory, but it can’t be verified since the Fed stopped printing the M-3 that would provide the relevant facts about the current cash inflows.

Jim Willie of GoldenJackass.com, offers an entirely different theory in his recent article “Spent Dollar Momentum.”

Willie opines, “Behind the scenes are the many illicit London-based firms busily buying US Treasury Bonds with freshly-printed money from the Dept of the Treasury. Their tracks are covered by the blackout on the money supply statistic. (M-3) An isolated US government with a well-oiled printing press as the primary support device makes for a dangerous currency situation.”

Willie’s theory jives nicely with the US Treasury’s figures on the “Foreign Financing of US Government Debt” (June 2006) Surprisingly, between 2005 and 2006, our friends in the United Kingdom purchased another $142 billion of USD bringing their stockpile of dollars to 201.4 billion.

Why?

Why would UK investors suddenly stock up on dollar assets when everyone else in the currency market is moaning about the greenback’s systemic problems?

Could it be that banks in the UK are just hiding the paper trail for friends in America who wanted to forestall a collapse in the dollar until after the election?

Of course there is another explanation for the irregular activity in cash inflows, (purchase of US Treasuries) that is, that we’re still living in a "faith-based" Wonderland where foreign trading partners are only too happy to buy an endless supply of worthless paper from a well-meaning giant who is busy spreading democracy to the "great unwashed" in developing world.

Of course, that is an utter fiction. The world is backing away from the dollar and dollar-based assets while the Federal Reserve attempts to conceal the details until we get through the election-cycle. It's that simple.

There is nothing accidental about the crisis we'll soon be facing. The officials at the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury are fully aware of the devastating effects of massive trade deficits, increasing the money supply, and interest rates. They have set the country on the path to ruin as part of a broader scheme for remaking the global system according to well-known precedents. In truth, the plan to modify the present system has a long history; going back to the 1980s when many of the same actors in government today were in positions of power in the Reagan administration. For the last six years they have been patching together their strategy; producing record deficits, unfunded tax cuts, mammoth government expansion, and doubling the money supply.

Who can possibly argue that they did not understand the implications of their actions?

Did Greenspan know that by lowering interest rates in 2001 to 1.5 percent that he would sluice trillions of dollars into the real estate market, producing the largest equity bubble in history? And, if he didn't know, then how is it that the Fed provides the statistics which actually tell how large the housing bubble is?

Can’t Greenspan read the charts and graphs his own organization puts out?

And why did Alan Greenspan support the “no down payment,” “interest-only” loans and adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), which allowed “high risk” people to qualify for mortgages when the Fed knew, according to their own figures, that if interest rates went up, foreclosures would skyrocket?

Of course he knew; they all knew. How could they NOT know? They produce the facts and figures themselves! It’s all part of a madcap scheme to shift wealth to the top 1 percent and drive a wooden stake into the heart of the middle class. When Greenspan saw that doomsday was approaching, he got “cold feet” and bailed out. Now the scholarly Ben Bernanke is left to supervise the economic meltdown and face the public scorn.

Trouble Ahead

Currently, the U.S. economy is held together by the slimmest of threads; literally duct-taped together by massaging all the crucial economic numbers, pumping as much cheap fiat-currency into the system, and by "increasingly suspicious" maneuverings in the futures markets. With the elections over, there will be no reason to conceal the rot at the heart of the system. After all, we are not facing an unforeseen catastrophe, but a planned demolition intended to increase the disparity between rich and poor to such an extent that democracy, as we know it, will no longer be possible.

Nothing is more repugnant to America’s ruling elite than the notion that every man, however broke and insignificant, can participate in our system of government.

The Federal Reserve's bloody fingerprints are all over our present dilemma. The privately-owned Fed has never operated in the public interest. By doubling the money supply in the last seven years and keeping interest rates artificially low, the Fed has generated a $10 trillion housing bubble while, at the same time, ignoring a $800 billion trade deficit which is sucking up American assets and crushing American industry at an unprecedented rate.

This massive expansion of debt has increased the likelihood that an unexpected event, like a bank failure or a teetering hedge fund, will cause a major disruption in the markets, sending tremors through the global system. Even if nothing explosive happens, the faltering real estate market will continue to swoon, consumer spending will dry up, and the fragile economy will crash to earth. In fact, this is taking place right now; retail sales are anemic, residential housing dropped a whopping 17 percent in the last three months, and economic growth shrunk to a measly 1.6 percent in the third quarter. The only thing keeping the economy from collapsing entirely is the sudden drop in oil prices that “conveniently” coincided with the midterm balloting.

This won’t last. According to industry analyst Matthew Simmons the world production of oil may have already peaked, setting the stage for a leveling-off period before the inevitable decline. Simmons has data to show that “world supply of oil has declined to 83.98 million barrels per day in the second quarter after hitting 84.35 million bpd in the forth quarter of 2005.” Oil production is going backwards not forwards.

No one believes the price of oil is going down any time soon. As energy prices rise and the housing market falls; consumer spending, which added $825 billion from home equity into last year’s economy, will continue shrivel. Thus, the Fed will have to make the tough choice of whether to loosen the purse strings and lower interest rates to keep the economy sputtering along or ratchet up rates to attract more foreign investment. (Keep in mind that the real estate market is already in retreat, even though the full force of the Fed’s interest rate increases won’t be felt for up to six to 12 months after they have been raised. The worst is yet to come)

Most economists believe that Fed Chairman Bernancke will be forced to lower rates sometime in 2007 to try to stimulate the economy and to affect a “soft landing” in the housing market, but don’t count on it.

I believe the Fed is more likely to either keep rates the same or raise them to outpace the anticipated increases in Europe and Asia. The reason for this is simple: it presently takes nearly $2.5 billion per day to maintain our current account deficit. To continue to attract foreign capital, US Treasuries must offer a higher rate of return than their foreign competitors. Now that the economies in Europe and Asia are growing, their interest rates are going up accordingly (to slow inflation). That means that the only way that America can continue to expand its debt, through the exchange of fiat currency for resources and manufactured goods, is by raising the return on Treasuries. And, that is probably what Bernanke will do, even though it will skewer the struggling American worker and the US economy at the same time.

The secret to running the global economic system is to control the issuance of currency and thereby be in a position to expand one’s own debt as one sees fit. The Federal Reserve must preserve its “dollar hegemony” if it wants to maintain the greenback as the world’s “reserve currency.” To accomplish that, the dollar must stay one step ahead of its competitors (higher rates) and prove that it is on solid financial footing. This is impossible now that the US economy is contracting, so Washington has decided to do the next best thing; corner the oil market. By controlling Middle East oil, US policy-makers believe that they can force foreign nations to accept the debt-plagued greenback regardless of the faltering US economy. It is no different than any other extortion racket.

If the plan succeeds the dollar will remain the de facto international currency. But it is a difficult task and the escalating violence in Iraq suggests that the results are far from certain.

Corporate Colonization

“Free Trade” is the Holy Grail of neoliberalism. It is essentially a public relations scam intended to disguise the shifting of wealth, jobs and resources from either the middle class or the public sector to the corporate and banking establishments.’ Despite the zealous cheerleading of Thomas Friedman and his ilk; the basic facts have been thoroughly examined and are not in dispute. Free trade has been a dead loss for everyone except the people for whom it was originally designed; the wealthiest and most powerful men on the planet. It has served them quite well.

For example, “since NAFTA went into effect in 1994, the US has lost over $4 trillion to foreigners through its trade deficit” . . ."During that 11.5 year period , foreign ownership of US assets skyrocketed an amazing 400 percent from $3 trillion to over $12 trillion” . . ."Foreign interests now own 46 percent of US Treasury debt, 26 percent of corporate bonds, and 13 percent of US corporate equities. Now nearly 100 percent of ongoing borrowings by the government are funded by foreign interests.” . . ."Foreign interests also control a majority of US domestic industries such as movies, music, publishing, metal ore mining, cement production, engine and power plant production, rubber and plastics and are major owners of US industries such as pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturing, industrial machinery manufacturing, motor vehicles, and electronic equipment and components . . . In addition, the US has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs over the last decade, real wage growth after inflation has been essentially zero,” and personal debt has never been higher. (Data from Thomas Heffner EconomyInCrisis.org)

Since 1980, 13,730 major companies have been sold to foreign corporations. We no longer produce what we need to sustain ourselves.

These facts may have a mind-numbing affect on the reader, but they make a point that is simple and unavoidable. The country is being colonized by corporate predators and its main assets are being sold off to the highest bidder. This rampant carpetbagging is taking place in full view of the American public that still clings to the spurious idea that “free trade” is generally beneficial for all. It is not, and we are about to experience its full-effects as America’s “straw house” economy topples from its loss of manufacturing-capacity and its staggering account imbalances.

“Foreign investors now own 46 percent of US Treasury debt” over $3 trillion dollars! The Federal Reserve and its corporate wolves are planning to prolong the hemorrhaging of US wealth as long as possible, extracting every last farthing from the prostrate corpse of the waning republic.

Now, we are at the brink. Energy prices will go higher after the elections, manufacturing will continue to flag, and the housing Zeppelin is drifting towards the high-tension wires. To make matters worse, the American consumer; the “engine for global economic growth,” is drowning in a sea of personal debt.

There’s no place to go but down.

Every part of this bleak picture was anticipated by its architects. That’s why they hastily slapped together the requisite legislation for a modern day police state. After passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which allows the president the arrest whomever he chooses without charges) and overturning the Posse Comitatus Act (the president is now free to deploy the military within America against US citizens), the Bush administration is as ready as they can be. Apparently, they feel like they can manage the public shock and outrage with detention camps and water cannons.

We’ll see.

In any event, the trap has been set and any minor disruption in the hedge funds or derivatives markets will put the economy into a violent tailspin forcing our "Decider” president to activate his plans for the new world order.

Battle Stations, Battle Stations

Last week an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard appeared in the UK Telegraph, where he stated: “[Treasury Secretary] Paulson re-activated the secretive support team to prevent markets meltdown. Judging by their body language, the US authorities believe that the roaring bull-market is just a sucker’s rally before the inevitable storm hits. . . . the plunge protection team is a shadowy body with powers to support stock-index, currency, and credit futures in a crash. Otherwise known as the working group on financial markets, it was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown in October 1987.” . . . Paulson has set up “a command center at the US Treasury that will track global markets and serve as an operations base in the next crisis.” (Members include the heads at Treasury, Federal Reserve and Securities and Exchange Commission)

Evans-Pritchard adds: “Mr. Paulson has asked the team to examine ‘systemic risk posed by hedge funds and derivatives, and the government’s ability to respond to a financial crisis . . . We need to be vigilant and make sure we are thinking through all of the various risks and that we are being very careful here. Do we have enough liquidity in the system?'’”

And, finally, Evans-Pritchard asks, "[Do] Mr. Paulson and Mr. Cox [SEC] know something that we do not: whether other hedge funds are in the same sinking boat as Amaranth Advisors and Vega Management, keel-hauled by bets on natural gas and bonds? Or whether currency traders with record short positions on the Japanese Yen and Swiss Franc are about to learn the perils of the Carry Trade, a high-stakes game of chicken where you bet against fundamentals with high leverage to make a quick profit. Everybody knows it will blow up if the dollar goes into free fall.”

So what is Paulson anticipating?

Gabriel Kolko offers us a clue in a CounterPunch article, “Why a Global Economic Deluge Looms,” “The entire global financial structure is becoming uncontrollable in crucial ways its nominal leaders never expected. Instability is its hallmark . . . Contradictions now wrack the world’s financial system, and if we are to believe the institutions and personalities who have been in the forefront of the defense of capitalism, it may well be on the verge of serious crisis.”

Deregulation and reduced market transparency have created a plethora of financial instruments that are relatively untested and extraordinarily volatile. By eliminating the rules of the game, market savvy investors have raked in the profits but reshaped the economic landscape in a way that no one can predict what the ultimate outcome will be. Hedge funds are now loaded with over-leveraged debt instruments that promise a generous return in an up tempo market, but certain doom in an economic downturn. Now, that all the arrows are pointed towards recession, the devastating effects of this new “liberalized” system will be felt throughout the global economy.

No one knows what is in store for these high-risk hedge funds which have only been in existence for a short time and into which Americans have dumped trillions of their hard-earned savings. As Kolko says, “The credit derivative market was almost non-existent in 2001, grew fairly slowly until 2004, and went into the stratosphere, reaching $17.3 trillion by the end of 2005.”

Is it any wonder why the main players at the Fed, the Treasury and the SEC are feeling a bit jittery?

Any shock to the markets could set off a system-wide catastrophe. Just this week, for example, Taiwan was bracing for a stock market crash following the surprise indictment of first-lady Wu Shu-chen. Even relatively small incidents like this on the other side of the world create the potential for contagion that can spread rapidly in this new world of globalized markets. The danger is even greater when those markets are built on foundations of sand.

Hank Paulson was doubtless selected as Treasury secretary as the best possible “industry-insider” to oversee the unwinding of America’s humongous account imbalances and flimsy “deregulated” markets. His job is to ensure that, at the end of the day, US banking giants, the Federal Reserve, and western elites still control the global economic system and that the dollar reigns supreme. Whatever happens to the American middle class in the process is of no consequence.

But Paulson faces an insurmountable task from this point on; fudging the numbers only works for so long. So far, the greenback has benefited from the manipulation of oil prices, but that will soon end. (Better “fill ‘er up” now) The US economy is a shriveled shadow of its former self; housing and manufacturing are in a shambles and growth depends entirely on the expansion of debt. As GDP begins to nosedive, foreign investment will dry up, capital will flee to more promising markets in Asia and Europe, and the American people will totter into a barren world of soaring unemployment, hyperinflation, and 1930s type deprivation.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration still believes that their plan to remake the world’s strongest economy into a corporate fiefdom is a prudent way to meet the exigencies of the new century. Their foolishness defies description.

The country is now facing a Chernobyl-type meltdown and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. The foundation blocks for sound economic growth and prosperity have been replaced by a misguided faith in military adventurism and police state repression. The results are plain to see.

We are now more vulnerable to a seismic economic event than anytime since the Great Depression. The corporatists and the money-enders have absconded with the nation’s wealth; gutting the manufacturing sector, creating enormous equity bubbles, and raffling off our vital industries to foreign predators. Their unchecked avarice has left the country teetering on the verge of ruin. At the same time, the Bush administration has sown dragon's teeth across the world; leaving the US with precious few friends who will throw us a lifeline when the ship starts listing.

Hard times are on the way; only this time it’ll be detention centers instead of soup kitchens.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com.