Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Will SEC make utilities like American Electric Power (AEP) disclose climate risks? – September 18, 2007 discusses the recent Washington Post article that cites efforts by some environmental groups and investors to force companies to disclose the impact of climate change to their company. This is an interesting discussion but it begs the broader discussion regarding how much a company should discuss on hypothetical or future issues that may affect its health.

The Washington Post reports that pension fund managers representing $1 trillion have petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to required public companies to disclose the impact of global warming on their business prospects. If the SEC agrees, the change could threaten investors in utility stocks — which are among the biggest private sources of carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

How green is General Electric’s (GE) green business?

BloggingStocks – September 14, 2007

No one should be surprised at this. Evidently GE is getting push-back from its customers and its shareholders on the company’s "green" efforts. GE is one of the oldest corporations around and has a wide assortment of businesses. Some of these businesses thrive off the use and production of electricity, so some customers are not too keen on GE condemning the way electricity is used and produced.

In addition, this ecological effort undoubtedly has extra costs or lower margins than a more traditional approach. This then reduces the profitability of GE which impacts its shareholders. In this current business environment, companies need to be very concerned about upsetting their shareholders!

Green energy hot, price rising

San Jose Business Journal – August 10, 2007

As the loyal readers of this site know, I am not a fan of carbon credits. This article underlies much of my mistrust of this system. The article touts several companies that have bought green credits (companies that aren’t huge per capita users of energy). These companies have bought the credits because they want to do the right thing by the environment, and admittedly, they want the bragging rights of buying them.

Academic challenges global warming theory

ABC Western Queensland – July 6, 2007

Much of the science of this article has been discussed other places on my site but I think the most significant statements are when it comes to carbon credit trading.

I don’t think that carbon trading makes sense and I am also not sure that it even works. Most carbon trading programs are tied to growing plants but, inevitably, those new plants will die and the process of decay releases much of that CO2 back to the atmosphere. So unless the carbon trading system takes into account the full carbon lifecycle, the system is not effective.

Britain pulls plug on Als big climate change show

Times Online – June 3, 2007

This article concerns the concert to increase awareness of global warming called Live Earth.  The concert series is being planned by former Vice President Al Gore with as many as 12 concerts. The shows have been receiving a fair bit of criticism for their use of energy, which in itself is indicative of the entire movement.


NOAA Magazine – March 21, 2007

This is fantastic.  NOAA has released a new diagnostic tool that will monitor the changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases by region and by source.  This will allow users to understand the pollution that is being put into the environment.

In the above image “negative fluxes (blue regions) indicate places where uptake of CO2 occurs. Positive fluxes (red colors) indicate places where emissions of CO2 occurs. The figures include biological and fire fluxes, no fossil fuels.”

The online data framework distinguishes between changes in the natural carbon cycle and those occurring in human-produced fossil fuel emissions. It also provides verification for scientists using computer models to project future climate change.

Car Makers Mobilize Over CO2 Curbs – April 9, 2007

This article discusses how the automotive industry is trying to deal with legislative restrictions on carbon dioxide production of its products. This is all part of the political process which as reader of my blog know I think is premature. When we are still trying to figure out all of the science of this issue, the only politics that we should be discussing is how much money do we spend on doing full and accurate models.

Auto makers are shifting into high gear to protect themselves under a federal global-warming cap they see around the corner. Cars and light trucks generate about one-fifth of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global-warming gas, which is produced when fossil fuel is burned. With pressure for U.S. emission curbs intensifying, auto makers are mobilizing to try to shift the potential economic pain onto someone else.

Duke to press for emissions cap

Charlotte Business Journal – January 19, 2007

This article discusses what several companies are doing to “get green”. The big question here is if they are doing this because they believe in global warming or are they doing this because they think it is good for business.

Duke Energy Corp. is seeking a federal cap on carbon-dioxide emissions at the same time the company is pushing for state approval to build two coal plants at its Cliffside facility in North Carolina.

Ten major companies, including Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK), are partnering with environmental groups to call for a nationwide limit on carbon-dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years, according to The New York Times.