Just like the automobile industry, the US is falling behind Asia in the area of green technology. Japan is about 10 years ahead of the US in solar technology. That country offers residential solar technology on a large scale. China has been putting in tons of money in development of wind technology.
According to a report from the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, as reported in the Financial Times, the US attracted about $56 billion in private capital for renewable energy technology between 2000 and 2008. China ended this same period with $41 billion in private capital invested. However, the report states that over the next 5 years, Japan, China and South Korea would between them invest a total of $509 billion in clean technology. In contrast, the US will invest about $172 billion over that same period.
This report states further that China is poised to repeat the same success in green technology that South Korea and Japan had established in electronics and automobiles. It looks like these "Green Tigers" will be the leaders in the gren technology industry with the US trying to play catch up once again. This will be a missed opportunity for the US the shift its economy from an unbalanced service oriented economy back to a balanced service and manufacturing economy. This economic transformation will benefit the US both in economic growth and security.
Unfortunately, we may be too late. China is already the leader in exporting solar power components and has one of the biggest wind turbine manufacturing industries. This year China will export the first wind turbine destined for use in a US wind farm valued at $1.5 billion. With a 10% unemployment rate, this is unacceptable that we would not be providing these wind turbines by our own companies to US wind farms.
According to the report, the US relies on foreign-owned companies to manufacture most wind turbines and produces less than 10% of the world's solar cells. In addition, we have already fell behind the other foreign automobile companies in hybrid and electric car technology.
The US needs to take the lead in this. There should be no debate on this by Congress because it benefits all Americans: conservatives, liberals, independents, farmers, city dwellers, the wealthy and the poor. Let's get to work become the leader in the Eco-economy.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
News from Copenhagen December 9th
Well, it looks like that China and the US cannot play nice in the global sandbox. China yesterday pushed back the climate change obligations onto the developed countries stating that the developed countries should be responsible for reducing carbon emissions, not the developing countries.
The US has returned responded by stating that it is China, whose Co2 emissions will increase dramatically in the upcoming years, that needs to seriously commit to such C02 reductions.
The fact is the both US and China have to step up to the plate. One country, the US, is currently the largest emitter and the other country, China, will be the largest emitter. Until these two countries commit to take serious action to reduce their emissions, the rest of the world will not take action. We are in an international relations suspended state in a rapidly changing environment. It is time for these two "babies" to grow up, get out of the sandbox and start acting like adults and not like children.
Speaking of children, a US Republican "delegation" is showing up to Denmark to protest any real commitment by the President to a global pact to reduce Co2 emissions. They claim that any such action will have a negative impact on US jobs. The added that the President should not make the same mistake that Al Gore did in Kyoto by committing to something he cannot deliver. And we thought health care reform was tough. Wait until the White House pushes for a climate change bill. That will make the health care reform protests look like a tea party in comparison to the battles that will occur on the Senate and House floor and the various Jerry Springer like town hall meetings throughout the country.
So here is a word of advice to polar bears and nations at sea level, seek hire ground.
The US has returned responded by stating that it is China, whose Co2 emissions will increase dramatically in the upcoming years, that needs to seriously commit to such C02 reductions.
The fact is the both US and China have to step up to the plate. One country, the US, is currently the largest emitter and the other country, China, will be the largest emitter. Until these two countries commit to take serious action to reduce their emissions, the rest of the world will not take action. We are in an international relations suspended state in a rapidly changing environment. It is time for these two "babies" to grow up, get out of the sandbox and start acting like adults and not like children.
Speaking of children, a US Republican "delegation" is showing up to Denmark to protest any real commitment by the President to a global pact to reduce Co2 emissions. They claim that any such action will have a negative impact on US jobs. The added that the President should not make the same mistake that Al Gore did in Kyoto by committing to something he cannot deliver. And we thought health care reform was tough. Wait until the White House pushes for a climate change bill. That will make the health care reform protests look like a tea party in comparison to the battles that will occur on the Senate and House floor and the various Jerry Springer like town hall meetings throughout the country.
So here is a word of advice to polar bears and nations at sea level, seek hire ground.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
This Month's Number: 57%
57%
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press did a recent polling of 1500 adults regarding the issue of whether global warming is caused by man made activities. The result is that only 57% of those polled believe that there is strong scientific evidence that that the Earth is warming due to man's actions. This dropped considerably from 77% in 2006 and 71% in 2008.
What is happening here? There are more sceptics out there that are getting public exposure to "challenge" the scientific evidence. Because of the 24/7 news cycle and the variety of different methods to express your opinion via the Internet and other forms of electronic communication, there is a larger audience that is being exposed to this counter position.
In addition, although this happened after the polling, more than 3000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were released to the public after their servers were hacked. According to news reports, there is evidence in these documents and e-mails that certain scientists were working together to exclude or "massage" certain data in order to unequivocally reach the conclusion that man is causing global warning. Also, it has been reported that there were efforts to exclude scientists who were critics of this position.
Unfortunately, this new news might push that 57% down to a level where the majority believes that man is not causing global warming. More importantly, the scientific community is now facing an issue of credibility. They already had a hard time convincing people beforehand. Now, they are facing a more sceptic public with a lack of credibility. Good luck. I am going to start working on that Ark.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press did a recent polling of 1500 adults regarding the issue of whether global warming is caused by man made activities. The result is that only 57% of those polled believe that there is strong scientific evidence that that the Earth is warming due to man's actions. This dropped considerably from 77% in 2006 and 71% in 2008.
What is happening here? There are more sceptics out there that are getting public exposure to "challenge" the scientific evidence. Because of the 24/7 news cycle and the variety of different methods to express your opinion via the Internet and other forms of electronic communication, there is a larger audience that is being exposed to this counter position.
In addition, although this happened after the polling, more than 3000 emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) were released to the public after their servers were hacked. According to news reports, there is evidence in these documents and e-mails that certain scientists were working together to exclude or "massage" certain data in order to unequivocally reach the conclusion that man is causing global warning. Also, it has been reported that there were efforts to exclude scientists who were critics of this position.
Unfortunately, this new news might push that 57% down to a level where the majority believes that man is not causing global warming. More importantly, the scientific community is now facing an issue of credibility. They already had a hard time convincing people beforehand. Now, they are facing a more sceptic public with a lack of credibility. Good luck. I am going to start working on that Ark.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Buffett Betting on Coal?
Most of us would agree that Warren Buffett's stature as an investor reaches level of Godlike stature in which many people call him the Oracle of Omaha. His company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) (BRKb.N), is paying $26 billion to buy out railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNI.N), the company's biggest ever investment. Burlington Northern Santa Fe is a leading transporter of coal. According to MarketWatch, this company's coal shipments accounted for roughly 25 percent of the firm's total revenue in Q3 2009. In fact, Burlington Northern had shipped 297 million tons of coal last year, which amounts to roughly 10% of the energy supply used to meet country's electrical needs. Its coal shipments are down 6% this year, however, which many believe is due to recession.
It seems odd that Berkshire and Buffett would invest this amount of money in a company that relies on a good portion of its revenue from shipping coal when there is a pending carbon emissions bill in Congress and a push to replace coal with other alternative clean energy solutions, such as solar and wind. Perhaps Buffett believes that coal will still be a significant part of the country's future energy policy or that the pending bill in Congress will not have as great of an impact in reducing coal usage. In addition, investing in a railroad is not a bad investment considering that trains use a significantly less amount of fuel than other forms of transportation.
In fact, Buffet is quoted as saying the following:
BNSF last year ... moved a ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of diesel. It releases far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. It saves enormously on energy consumption and ... it diminishes highway congestion. Rails last year moved 40 percent, more than 40 percent, over the country. They moved more than all those trucks, just the four big railroads. It's a very effective way of moving goods. I basically believe this country will prosper and you'll have more people moving more goods 10 and 20 and 30 years from now, and the rails should benefit.
It should be noted that Berkshire has invested in the energy company, MidAmerican Energy, which has received approval in Iowa to build wind farms with a total 1,001 megawatts of generating capacity. Like any shrewd investor, you need to hedge your bets. I am leaning toward Congress and public pressure to pass a carbon emissions bill that will restrict coal usage; however, betting against Buffett is never a good strategy even if you will be betting against the future survival of the planet.
It seems odd that Berkshire and Buffett would invest this amount of money in a company that relies on a good portion of its revenue from shipping coal when there is a pending carbon emissions bill in Congress and a push to replace coal with other alternative clean energy solutions, such as solar and wind. Perhaps Buffett believes that coal will still be a significant part of the country's future energy policy or that the pending bill in Congress will not have as great of an impact in reducing coal usage. In addition, investing in a railroad is not a bad investment considering that trains use a significantly less amount of fuel than other forms of transportation.
In fact, Buffet is quoted as saying the following:
BNSF last year ... moved a ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of diesel. It releases far fewer pollutants into the atmosphere. It saves enormously on energy consumption and ... it diminishes highway congestion. Rails last year moved 40 percent, more than 40 percent, over the country. They moved more than all those trucks, just the four big railroads. It's a very effective way of moving goods. I basically believe this country will prosper and you'll have more people moving more goods 10 and 20 and 30 years from now, and the rails should benefit.
It should be noted that Berkshire has invested in the energy company, MidAmerican Energy, which has received approval in Iowa to build wind farms with a total 1,001 megawatts of generating capacity. Like any shrewd investor, you need to hedge your bets. I am leaning toward Congress and public pressure to pass a carbon emissions bill that will restrict coal usage; however, betting against Buffett is never a good strategy even if you will be betting against the future survival of the planet.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Changing of the Leaves and the Landscape of the Rocky Mountains
I have come across news reports on NPR and in the Wall Street Journal about the decrease in Aspen trees in Colorado. So far, over 500,000 acres of Aspens have died off in Colorado. In fact, this decrease in the Aspen tree population is also occurring in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming and parts of Canada. There is a variety of opinions on the cause, which range from the severe drought in the West to run of the mill pest and fungus and wild life. There is also the rise in the pesky pine beetle, which is wiping out the evergreen trees. In fact, it is expected that Colorado will lose virtually every mature lodge pool pine, a total of five million acres.
This will result not only a huge environmental impact in this area but a huge economic impact. Millions of people travel to states like Colorado during the fall to see the turning of the leaves of the Aspen trees. If these trees die off, so ends this picturesque spectacle along with the tourist dollars. Tourism is down this year already; however, part of it is due to the recession. Add in the disappearance of fall's main attraction, the small towns scattered throughout this part of the country may feel more of this recession pain.
Foresters and scientists are working on solving this mystery; however, unfortunately, there may not be any clear cut answer. We may be seeing the last of the Aspen and change in the Western landscape forever.
This will result not only a huge environmental impact in this area but a huge economic impact. Millions of people travel to states like Colorado during the fall to see the turning of the leaves of the Aspen trees. If these trees die off, so ends this picturesque spectacle along with the tourist dollars. Tourism is down this year already; however, part of it is due to the recession. Add in the disappearance of fall's main attraction, the small towns scattered throughout this part of the country may feel more of this recession pain.
Foresters and scientists are working on solving this mystery; however, unfortunately, there may not be any clear cut answer. We may be seeing the last of the Aspen and change in the Western landscape forever.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
It really is windy
The American wind belt run from Texas up to the Dakotas. Last year, America has overtook Germany to become the world's largest wind power generator. Wind energy accounts for 42% of the new energy generating capacity in the US. Unfortunately, like many industries in the US, the growth of the wind generating industry has slowed down a bit from 2008 where it had grown by 50% compared to this year's growth of 20%.
What happened is that creating wind energy requires a lot of upfront capital. The credit crunch and economic down turn has shrunk the availability for this capital. In addition, the wind industry is having problems getting various local, states and federal authorities to set up power lines to transmit this wind energy. In fact, the biggest wind energy promoter, T. Boone Pickens, just called off plans to build the world's largest wind farm because he could not get the transmissions lines.
However, it is not all negative. Government stimulus and funding is helping to support the growth in this industry. In addition, legislation that would require energy company's to obtain a certain percentage of its power from alternative sources, such as wind, will help states commit to build these transmissions lines. There is great growth opportunity considering that 2% of US electricity is generated by wind and there is a lot of untapped resources out there to harness this energy. Keep any eye out on the weather report for more windy days, which could be a good thing for your utility bill.
What happened is that creating wind energy requires a lot of upfront capital. The credit crunch and economic down turn has shrunk the availability for this capital. In addition, the wind industry is having problems getting various local, states and federal authorities to set up power lines to transmit this wind energy. In fact, the biggest wind energy promoter, T. Boone Pickens, just called off plans to build the world's largest wind farm because he could not get the transmissions lines.
However, it is not all negative. Government stimulus and funding is helping to support the growth in this industry. In addition, legislation that would require energy company's to obtain a certain percentage of its power from alternative sources, such as wind, will help states commit to build these transmissions lines. There is great growth opportunity considering that 2% of US electricity is generated by wind and there is a lot of untapped resources out there to harness this energy. Keep any eye out on the weather report for more windy days, which could be a good thing for your utility bill.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Could London Go Dark?
I remember watching documentaries about London in WWII when it suffered countless bombing attacks from the Germans. One of the UK's defense measures against these attacks was to turnoff all of the lights to limit the visual targets for the German bombers. Unfortunately, England may be seeing some form of a blackout again. At least it is not due to the threat of some country's aerial attack.
Britain is running short of power. It is facing the shut down of many power stations over the next decade and its energy supply from its own internal resources is becoming tight. The government estimates that 750GW in generating capacity will be gone by 2015. Ironically, the economic recession has perhaps pushed this out a little further because the demand for energy has dropped; however, it is hoped and believed that this economic down turn will end shortly.
Britain's energy grids have already shown some strain when it was hit by a harsh winter in 2005-06. It has faced blackouts recently due to two power stations failing at the same time. The problem is that Britain is facing aging power stations and a shortage of alternative resources and new power stations. In addition, the building of new "cleaner" power stations, such as nuclear, would take years to get one up and running and other alternative resources, such as solar. On top of that Britain has committed to lower its carbon emissions by 34% lower than its levels in 1990 by 2020 and 80% by 2050. As a result, it cannot turn to a reliable and abundant energy source, such as coal, because it is the largest fossil fuel emitter. The government is looking at expanding its alternative energy resources such as wind power. In fact, the UK is looking at getting 33GW of energy from its offshore wind program. This is an incredible leap considering now they only get 0.6GW. In addition, they would need to build 5000 turbine over the next 11 years to meet this goal. Another source could be gas; however, the supply from the North Sea is shrinking. This means that the Brits will need to rely on foreign sources such as Russia and the Middle East. This dependency could jeopardize the UK's security.
In the future, we may see many countries facing a similar energy crisis as they are limited on the type of energy resource they can use due to their commitments to meet certain carbon emissions reduction goals. This is a tough trade off; however, it seems like trade off that must been done in order to reduced global warming.
Britain is running short of power. It is facing the shut down of many power stations over the next decade and its energy supply from its own internal resources is becoming tight. The government estimates that 750GW in generating capacity will be gone by 2015. Ironically, the economic recession has perhaps pushed this out a little further because the demand for energy has dropped; however, it is hoped and believed that this economic down turn will end shortly.
Britain's energy grids have already shown some strain when it was hit by a harsh winter in 2005-06. It has faced blackouts recently due to two power stations failing at the same time. The problem is that Britain is facing aging power stations and a shortage of alternative resources and new power stations. In addition, the building of new "cleaner" power stations, such as nuclear, would take years to get one up and running and other alternative resources, such as solar. On top of that Britain has committed to lower its carbon emissions by 34% lower than its levels in 1990 by 2020 and 80% by 2050. As a result, it cannot turn to a reliable and abundant energy source, such as coal, because it is the largest fossil fuel emitter. The government is looking at expanding its alternative energy resources such as wind power. In fact, the UK is looking at getting 33GW of energy from its offshore wind program. This is an incredible leap considering now they only get 0.6GW. In addition, they would need to build 5000 turbine over the next 11 years to meet this goal. Another source could be gas; however, the supply from the North Sea is shrinking. This means that the Brits will need to rely on foreign sources such as Russia and the Middle East. This dependency could jeopardize the UK's security.
In the future, we may see many countries facing a similar energy crisis as they are limited on the type of energy resource they can use due to their commitments to meet certain carbon emissions reduction goals. This is a tough trade off; however, it seems like trade off that must been done in order to reduced global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
