Related posts :

• Green Spaces Drive Economy (3)

Highlighted below are some of the areas where the air quality is considered unhealthful on a substantial number of days each year :

Click the image to see it full size

Related posts :

• Amnesty International flags what’s wrong (8)

Every winter, the volunteers of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society sail all over the Atlantic Ocean, on board of their boat. Their mission is to protect whales from the Japanese whalers. This marine animals’ protection movement was created by Captain Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Although whaling has been commercially forbidden for more than twenty years now, the Japanese claim their very harpooning of these magnificent animals only has scientific purposes. Japan, Norway and Iceland keep hunting whales. Since the ban has been established in 1986, more than 25000 cetaceans have been killed. Both Japan and Iceland keep claiming their hunt has « scientific » goals; however, the meat of the shot whales is modified and sold on their national markets.

In order to struggle against this slaughter, each single year, the Sea Shepherd actively hinders this bloody fishing. Their technique is simple but very dangerous: they come in between the Japanese harpoons and the whales to cover the latter’ escape. A powerful technique though, for it has allowed the saving of many cetaceans.

The very last purchase of the association should be of a considerable help for these volunteers and their difficult mission: THE Ady Gil (thus named in honour of the benefactor who helped the association to get this “defense weapon”) is a prototype ship which is used to promote the biofuels: it is thus one of the most ecological boats in the world.

This futurist 24-meter long trimaran holds the world tour speed record (60 days) and can sail as fast as 62 miles per hour. It can dive under 7-meter high waves and be autonomous on more than 14,000 miles. To help it suit its new job, these big-hearted pirates have operated a few modifications on it so as to make it more efficient. This spaceship-like vehicle, which reminds us of the Batmobile, is strengthened by an armour made of kevlar to stand up to the ice, as well as to small-calibre bullets (and, supposedly, to harpoons too ). It has also been covered with a paint which acts like a defector against the radar waves.

Thanks to this technology, the Sea Shepherd hopes to intercept and to disturb whalers in order to put an end to those scientific whale-hunting campaigns. This action goes hand in hand with Australia and New-Zealand, which told about their intention to bring Japan to justice to stop this massacre which takes place on their respective frontier thresholds.

Let us hope that the speed and the advanced technology of this boat, combined with the determination of its crew, will contribute to discourage the Japanese whalers once and for all.

Post edited following the collision of a Japanese whaler with the Ady Gil : more information

Video of the collision

Related posts :

• Communicating about sharks ? No, “for” sharks ! ;) (1)
• Shark finning : our sea is turning into a blood bath (2)

There is an abundance of food available but do you know how it has been produced, processed and sold?

For instance, did you know that coffee can be toxic ? Some types of coffee contain a toxic substance produced during the metabolism of certain microscopic fungi or molds, called ochratoxin A. This substance is found especially in green beans stored under improper conditions. By roasting coffee beans, OTA is not destroyed, but its’ taste and smell disappears. An increased level of this substance in the body could lead to cancerous tumours…

MEP’s (Members of the European Parliament) insist that theEuropean Union (EU) have common rules on the labelling of food, so that consumers know where food comes from and under what conditions it has been grown and processed. Food additives must be safe and nano-particles should be tested before being used in food products. Animal cloning for food intended for human consumption should be banned, say MEPs. Packaging of organic products are also recyclable and no testing has been conducted on animals.

Organic agriculture reflects a desire to work in a more environmently-friendly space, which respects the natural balance and animal welfare. It is a form of agriculture that seeks to preserve soils, which reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and prohibits the use of synthetic chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides) and GMO ( Genetically Modified Organisms).

Organic Agriculture ascribes to a philosophy of sustainable development and contributes to the improved health of the planet and helps preserve natural resources over the long term.

With a turnover of 4.6 billion euros in 2006, Germany is Europe's foremost organic market, followed by Britain, Italy and France.
Organic meat is better for the environment in a number of ways. Animals on organic farms have a better life; they can move freely, go outside and eat nutritious food. Furthermore, organic farms do not use fertilizers, chemicals or gene technology, so the meat you are buying is actually better for your health!

Pesticides: good or bad?

Pesticides play a vital role in modern agriculture. They help increase yields and destroy plant diseases. At the same time, pesticides can have harmful effects on human health and the environment.

Top 3 E-hazards:

E numbers are determined by specialists in three major categories: safe, suspect (mostly) and dangerous. Although the number categorized as dangerous additives is quite large (about 50 E's), three of them are regarded as the most risky to health.

1. Color chemicals :
- E102 (tartrazine, yellow no 5) and E104 (quinoline yellow, yellow no 10), found in alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, dried fruits and vegetables, confectionery, ice cream, icing, cream, biscuits, yellow processed cheese, instant soups, snacks, sauces, mayonnaises.
- E150a B, C, D A caramel colour present in almost all sweets and colas.
- E133 (brilliant blue) is found especially in sweets, juices and chewing gum.
- E122 (carmoisine, Carmoisine), red dye present in sweets, creams, drinks and lots of meat.
2. E320 (butylated hydroxyanisole or BHA) is a preservative found in some fat, meat products, chewing gum and beer.
3. Sulphites (E220-E228) are in almost all products on the market, but especially in wine.

Packages aren’t safe

• Aluminum is found everywhere: in water, soil, air… and fruits and vegetables grown in soils with high levels of aluminum. By default, this metal comes in very small quantities. But we can still limit ingesting aluminum by avoiding packages containing aluminum. Some dairy products are packed inside aluminum for a longer storage life. Experts say that dairy products containing fat absorb large amounts of metals. It is therefore highly dangerous to drink milk from aluminum cans. Be careful about food wrapped in aluminum foil or food cooked in the oven on aluminum sheets too. Although aluminum is everywhere around us, it accumulates most quickly in foods.
• Plastic: just as dangerous… Bisphenol A is a substance discovered in 2002, which is found in large quantities in plastic packaging. The Statistics Center for Disease Prevention and Control in the U.S. shows that about 93% of the population have this substance in their blood. Bisphenol A mimics estrogen, the female sex hormone, and primarily affects the endocrine glands, being blamed for conditions such as infertility, breast cancer and early puberty in adolescent girls.
• Semicarbazidele (SEM) is found in foods packaged in glass jars with plastic lined metal covers. In studies conducted on laboratory mice researchers found that moderate semicarbazidele levels can have carcinogenic effects.
• Methyl-benzofenonele is a substance found in the ink of packaging, especially those of cereals for children.

But ecologically friendly products do not stop with food. There are cosmetics and organic cleaning products. One of the major producers of organic creams and shampoos is Australia.

French cosmetics that are certified by ECOCERT are not tested on animals. They are 100% organic and contain no chemicals.

A cosmetic product, in general, and in any form, gel, cream or mask, is necessarily composed of active ingredients and additives. Active ingredients are made up of clay, zinc, vitamins, hyaluronic acid and the extracts of some fruits and vegetables. The goal of the active ingredients is to accelerate the transmission into the epidermis. As for additives used to color, scent, or preserve the product, they are only "superficial".

Additives that are present in ordinary products are absent in organic ones and do harm to the skin.
Cosmetic products ingredients are often not clearly described. Labels are the only way to identify quality products. An organic product label shows that the product satisfies some very strict rules: no perfume, no color, no artificial preservatives, no alcohol, paraffin, vaseline or glycerin.

We still have a long way to go. You have to drive a few miles to find a supermarket that sells organic meat or to locate an organic farm or butcher, but slowly, we're getting there.
And when you take into account that even McDonalds has decided to sell only organic milk, then you know we're on the right track.
 

So think about what you put into your mouth or on your skin : put some logic in biology ! 

______

Thanks to Angela for reviewing this post.

Related posts :

• No related posts.

On Tuesday, 24 November, her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mette-Marti of Norway opened in Tofte (60kms away from the capital) the first electrical central in the world that works on the OSMOSIS phenomenon. It is not shocking to see this very first step taking place in Norway. Indeed, the Scandinavian countries are becoming (true) leaders in fighting against climate change, just as in optimising new technologies for the world to benefit from them.
 

What is OSMOSIS? How does it work? Is it simple?

Huge amounts of energy are set free when freshwater meets salt water, such as when a river runs into the sea. This energy can be used to generate power through osmosis.

Its main principle consists in filling 2 tanks; the first one with sea salt water and the second one with freshwater. Both tanks are connected with porous films. Both volumes will try to combine in order to have a balanced salinity rate. The film’s role is to allow the water molecules to go towards the seawater tank which attracts the freshwater, and to prevent the salt molecular particles from going through. A natural overpressure is created. A pipe is used to unclench an electrical turbine.

The idea of using the osmosis to generate power popped up in the 1970s. Back then, the membranes were not reliable yet and the energy prices were so low that no one found it a good investment. Nowadays however, this new technique is an excellent bargain for the renewable energy production :

• it is based on two natural sources (seawater & freshwater),
• it is not influenced by the weather forecast (sun path, wind…),
• it has a 100% neutral influence on the environment, and will be applicable everywhere a flow of water meets the sea, in almost all the countries around the world.

In Tofte, the plant is integrated in a humid big apartment volume. On the first floor we can see both fresh and salty water entries. The salty water is drained from a nearby lake. Sixty very slim membranes (Named modules) are (being) enrolled, each one being divided into parts of 30m2, thus looking like a gas tank. Both types of water enter separately in the modules where they will be exposed to the OSMOS process which increases the salty water volume at the exit. The decanted extra liquid is then pulsed into a small turbine.

Statkraft engineers are looking forward to the near future. They are aiming in 2015, to build a commercial osmotic power plant that will produce 25 Megawatts (MW), 1000 times more than that of Tofte. To achieve this goal, 5 million square meters of membrane will be implemented. An optimisation of the membrane type, efficiency, and sustainability are a must.

All the elements are in our hands. The planet resources are known. Research founds have been asked for. Now, it is our duty to find the best parameters for the combination of the different elements to achieve a better sustainable renewable energy.
 

Related posts :

• No related posts.

For example, substituting things like golf courses for conservation areas would essentially increase surrounding property value while diminishing overpriced maintenance fees. The same holds true for airports and other large acre-eating developments. Some of these areas are already abandoned or unkempt. For instance, park and recreational areas that were once highly visited have become urban wastelands. In an article from the Salt Lake Tribute, Lindsay Whitehurst discusses how area that was capped with tennis courts to replace an old reservoir had been empty for some time now. She further explains how the University of Utah received a loan to fill the old reservoir and turn the land into a conservation area.

Much larger metropolitan areas are also playing their role in promoting sustainability by implementing many Green Spaces within the city. In Meg Muckenhoupt's new book Boston's Gardens & Green Spaces, she discusses different green space within the city of Boston. With very low cost maintenance fees and little liability, these areas are perfect for protecting our wildlife and the environment. They also attract further tourism; which would in turn generate revenue from ticket/tour sales. This aligns with the implications of "economic viability" and long term sustainability, posing the questions, "Would the substitution of golf courses and airports in the short term lead to an abrupt economic downfall? It's true that this type of architecture provides undoubtedly high revenue. On the contrary, they both come with ridiculously high expenses and maintenance. Incorporating various elements of green architecture implies things like green roofing, which could in turn drive down electrical/gas costs dramatically.

Larger organizations are already taking a step in the right direction in Haiti. Machine behind the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) Doug Band has been working closely with organizations like AFH (Architecture for Humanity) to discuss potential means of green restoration. Combined with the additional efforts of many large collaborative units like the USGBC (United States Green Building Council), AFH hopes to shed some light on a terrible situation. Recent findings have driven people like McMahon and fellow conservationists to investigate further into upgrading and expanding green infrastructure efforts. As earth day 2010 slowly approaches, it's important that we as individuals follow and support these ventures. It's equally important that we adapt greener disciplines to support both our planet and our economy.

Related posts :

• Towards sustainability.. (0)

Clean coal technology is any technology that aims to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation, including chemically washing impurities from the coal, gasification, and carbon capture and storage. When coal is burned in power plants and factories, the smoke released into the atmosphere is harmful to the environment. Since the Industrial Revolution, public outcry over acid raid, smog, and global climate change has forced coal producers to consider the cleanliness of the energy source. Since the American coal industry pumps 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year and contributes more than one-third of the nation's overall greenhouse gas emissions, clean coal has been developed to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.^[1]

New, clean energy sources, like wind energy and solar power, have recently stormed the market; none of them, however, are as cost-efficient as coal, but they are all friendlier to the environment. Coal companies have responded by beginning development of a new technology, clean coal technology, as a way of accessing coal's efficiency while removing the impurities that cause most environmental issues. Coal is a major source of power generation in the United States (50%) and China (80%)^[2]. New sociopolitical trends, however, are threatening coal's position on top, and clean coal technology is the coal industry's answer to concerns about environmental damage caused by burning coal.

Who Benefits

• Coal companies like Arch Coal, Peabody, Massey Energy Company, CONSOL Energy, and Yanzhou Coal Mining Company stand to benefit from the improved environmental image given to coal by terms like "clean coal" and "emissions-free", whether or not carbon emissions are lowered in the technology. Chevron has also entered the clean coal game, partnering recently with the Penn State University Institutes of Energy and Environment in order to develop clean coal power. If carbon emissions can be lowered in a cost-effective way these companies will also benefit from environmental and politial support.
• Companies that produce equipment associated with coal, from mining machinery (Joy Mining Machines) to railway transportation (Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe) stand to benefit from the increased demand for coal that would be caused by the increased popularity of clean coal technology.
• Because 70% of world steel production uses coal, and many other industrial input producers require coal power, companies like Arcelor Mittal, US Steel, Corus Group, and Nucor stand to benefit as cleaner, cheaper coal technologies make it easier for the companies to meet environmental regulations. While short-run costs will rise (as more expensive clean coal is used), long-run costs stand to fall as clean coal technology could help industry make the politically forseeable transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

Who Hurts

Alternative energy companies and their affiliates stand to lose the most from the advent of cleaner coal technologies.

• Solar companies like Suntech and Kyocera stand to lose their limited market share. Solar power is already less cost-efficient than coal; making coal environmentally friendly would remove any attraction, other than long-term sustainability, from solar. The drop in solar energy demand would also hurt silicon distributors like MEMC Electronics and Hemlock, as the current silicon market lies only in two places: semiconductors and photovoltaic cells.
• Companies specializing in

1. Wind energy (Suzlon, Siemens, and General Electric)
2. Natural gas (BP, Chevron, and Anadarko)
3. Nuclear (Exelon and Entergy)
4. Hydroelectric energy

all stand to lose from the increased popularity of coal as a method of electricity generation that would result from a drop in all coal emissions (including carbon).

Trends and Forces

Coal's Abundance and Cost-Efficiency

Though coal is a nonrenewable resource, it is highly abundant in the U.S. and China, two places where energy is in great demand. It is believed that 25% of the world's coal supply is in the U.S., and though coal companies are forced to refrain from most highly damaging mining practices, the product is relatively cheap and easy to extract. In the short run, this makes coal a highly utile natural resource in terms of U.S. energy production, but in the long run, it is projected that the reserves will only last another 250 years at current consumption rates. While this may seem like a long time, one must consider how consumption is growing exponentially.

Contribution to electricity generation worldwide by energy source^[3]

Rising worldwide demand for energy

The world's economy is growing quickly, fueled by the extreme growth of hugely populated developing countries like India and China. As economies grow, due to the proliferation of industrial technology and manufacturing jobs, there is an increasing need for energy. 84% of U.S. coal is used to produce electricity, but coal around the world has many uses. The fuel is used to power factories and steel blast furnaces, manufacture synfuels, and, in developing countries, power steam engines and heat homes.

Coal is the most cost-efficient source of energy in the world; currently, coal is abundantly found, cheaply harvested, and burns with a relatively high efficiency of 33% energy converted to electricity (compared to a high 18% for solar panels). Because of this, many developing countries have and may turn to coal as an economically viable source of energy to power their expansion. China, for instance, has seen huge increases in its demand for natural resources, of which coal is a major one; over 80% of China's installed capacity is coal-powered, and capacity continues to grow.

The global demand for coal, however, as fallen due to the global financial crisis. Weak demand caused the average weekly coal commodity spot prices in Northern Appalachia to fall from $138 in August 2008 to $58 in March 2009.^[4]

China

While 25% of the world's reserves are in the U.S., 40% or more of the world's production is in China. China's abundance of coal and it's growing electricity use make it the world's largest coal producer, user, and polluter. For this reason, many environmental groups around the world are pressuring China to shift its energy production in line with the Kyoto Protocol; coal companies in China and around the world are attempting to meet this demand for environmental friendliness while maintaining coal's energy dominance by developing clean coal technology. China, however, plans to export coal next year. Falling domestic demand has lowered the importance of coal, and a slowing economy has lowered the importance of its environmental impact.^[5]

Environmental Concerns

When burned, coal's simple impurities combine to create environmental problems like smog and acid rain. Furthermore, the burning of any carbon-based substance creates carbon gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, that act as greenhouse gases. While coal has an average efficiency of 33% energy output, its dirtiness makes it highly undesirable in and environmental and social context, which is the primary reason that clean coal technology (if developed) could be so important.

Estimated CO2 emissions per Terrawatt of various electricity sources

Traditional Clean Coal

Traditional clean coal technology works by removing impurities from the coal, allowing more carbon and oxygen to react when the coal is burned. Such technologies also act after the burning, filtering ash and pollutant gases like NO₂ out of the emissions. This is a highly useful technology in terms of ending localized environmental degradation such as acid rain and smog. For the most part, however, when coal producers claim such technologies "emissions-free", they are referring to traditional pollutant emissions – ash, NO₂, etc. Now, with increased public interest in the challenge of global climate change, carbon-based gases are considered to be emissions; many environmentalists consider traditional, cheaper clean coal technology to be "greenwashing" because it is refered to as "zero-emissions" even though there are carbon emissions.

Truly Clean Coal

Truly clean coal technology, in which greenhouse emissions are significantly reduced, has not yet been developed in a way that makes it remotely cost effective. Though there are technologies that can sequester carbon emissions in compounds or geological reserves, these technologies are expensive enough that nuclear technology would be much more cost-effective. In the current environmental, political, and economic climate, however, there is huge demand for the refinement of carbon-free coal. Increasing fear of climate change, international accords like the Kyoto Protocol, and rapid economic expansion coupled with environmental degradation in countries like China and India may combine the three forces to push the development of cost-effective and truly clean coal technology. If not, then coal could be on its last legs as renewable, clean energy sources are also in the process of being refined.

Underground Coal Gasification

Underground coal gasification is the process of burning coal directly in the ground and extracting methane (and other gases) as a source of fuel.^[6] Two holes are drilled in an area containing underground coal using equipment similar to that used in oil drilling. A burner is then inserted in the hole, and the resulting combustion releases methane and other gases that can be burned to produce energy.^[6] Traditional coal mining becomes prohibitively expensive and dangerous at depths greater than a few hundred meters, leaving nearly 85% of the world’s known coal resources inaccessible.^[6] However, UCG is possible at depths of up to 1000 meters, making 400% more coal partially recoverable.^[6] It is also cheaper to burn the coal in the ground than to extract it, wash it, and ship it. The current cost is about $2.00 per thousand cubic feet of methane gas, which is about 50% the cost for an equivalent amount of natural gas.^[6] UCG was invented in the 1930s, but recent advancements in technology and favorable energy economics have made UCG more attractive, especially in China. The Chinese government has heavily supported UCG programs, and China, the largest consumer of coal in the world, has the largest UCG development program.^[6]

Energy Legislation

On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act.^[8] The victory marks the first major action by the U.S. Congress to address climate change. However, the bill still needs to be approved by the Senate in order to be passed into law. Coal company executives have complained that targets and timetables set by the bill are in advance of the industry's abilities and have called for a lowering of the bill’s near-term emissions targets, which currently require a 17 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2020.^[9]

Because of the nature of coal power, as well as the nature of coal harvesting, government regulations could play a large part in pushing forward the development and implementation of truly clean coal technology. Examples of national and international legislation include

• The Kyoto Protocol: an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a global effort to stop climate change. The method by which Kyoto achieves this is by mandating emissions caps and through cap-and-trade systems of trading carbon credits. This has the potential to greatly damage the coal industry, making it a major driver for the development of truly clean coal technology. It should be noted that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty and has no plans to do so. China, while part of the treaty, is classified as a developing country and therefore has no obligation to lower its emissions. The country will soon be the largest polluter in the world because of its use of coal in an overwhelming part of its energy production.
• California's mandate that 25% of electricity will come from clean sources by 2020 and 75% by 2050
• U.S. Energy Regulations, like a bill being pushed through Congress over the summer of 2007 mandating that 20% of the United States' electricity will come from clean sources by 2020
• The European Union is looking to get 22% of its energy from clean sources by 2010
• China's Renewable Energy Law is planning on raising the total percentage of renewable energy used in the country to 10% by 2020

Because of coal's powerfully negative environmental image and the rise of climate change as a hot-button environmental issue, the future of coal power has major political implications. From mandatory emissions caps to carbon trading markets to subsidies of alternative, clean, and renewable energy sources, these legislative regulations are putting pressure on coal by forcing companies to limit coal power production or by making coal expensive relative to other power sources. Traditional clean coal technology is essentially an attempt to regain public support; the fact that burning coal will always release greenhouse gases keeps traditional clean coal from being a truly environmentally viable form of energy (at least until carbon sequestration techniques are perfected), but such technologies are being touted by coal companies as the answer to all their problems nonetheless. With major political support (a plank of Barack Obama's presidential platform is the support of clean coal), clean coal technology in any form has the potential to be driven forward by the government, restoring the coal industry's image in the process.

Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration, or carbon capture and storage (CCS), is a process whereby carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants is captured and stored underground. Nearly $3.4 billion were allocated to CCS in the U.S. stimulus package, and the European Union has established incentives for power plants to adopt CCS technology.^[10] Sequestration technology is already in use in the oil and chemical industries, though CCS would be prohibitively expensive for the private sector without government subsidy.

Related posts :

• Biofuels production and companies (11)

For its products, Nestlé uses palm oil from companies that are wreaking havoc on Indonesian rainforests, hindering the locals' way of life and pushing orang-utans towards extinction.

Nestle : good food, good life ?

We all deserve to have a break – but Indonesian rainforests do too ! So remember eating Nestlé takes bits out of Indonesia's precious woods. We're demanding Nestlé to spare rainforests and orang-utans… And to stop buying palm oil from destroyed forests.

Nestlé has banned this add out of Youtube… That was before everyone on the Internet forwarded it to their friends !  

Related posts :

• 7 tips to protect environment as you make love (3)

Global warming could mean more freak storms like Hurricane Katrina, pictured above--bad news for insurance companies.

Global Climate Change is a term that refers to the exploration of both the question of whether the climate of the entire planet might be changing, and why, and what the impact of those changes might be on investments in companies that may be affected by global changes in climate. For thirty years now, many scientists have been predicting that global warming could result in a future of powerful storms, rising sea levels, and widespread crop failures.  The science behind these claims remains highly controversial and was strongly opposed for many years, especially by the fossil fuel industry. However, recent public sentiment in many countries has increasingly shifted towards an acceptance of the concept of global warming and the possibility that warming may be correlated to human activities. Fueled by more reliable scientific studies (see the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as well as the popular media (such as Nobel Peace Prize-winner Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”), global climate change has emerged as a key issue in the political and economic arena. Global warming is an increasingly questioned phenomenon, and progressive national governments around the world have started taking action to respond to these environmental issues. Recent discussion in the scientific community including that in credible scientific papers and presentations, such as some presented at the January 2009 Mission Earth Seminar held in Zurich, Switzerland, attended by climatologists and Peak Oil experts, have exposed the failure of the vast majority of global warming research to properly account for the affect of Peak Oil on “predictions” made regarding climate change, including those made by the IPCC^{[1] [2]}. These critical failures have called into question the credibility of the scientists and organizations at the center of the global climate change controversy and the soundness and validity of their conclusions and recommendations to business and governments, including the soundness of the “Kyoto Protocol” and the question of whether Peak Oil may make the Kyoto Protocol obsolete and the costs to business of enforcing the treaty unnecessary. Although the “scientific consensus” in 2009 is that the planet’s atmosphere is warming, and consensus appears to indicate a correlation to human activities, science by definition is constantly evolving and it would be wise to recall that, for example, the concepts of Newton were considered to be the accepted scientific consensus until those concepts were superseded by the concepts of Einstein. Regardless, in the investment sphere, many companies will soon be affected by both changes in environmental legislation as well as predicted environmental results of continued climate change.

Background

Cause

Global climate change is thought to be a product of global warming, an observable atmospheric phenomenon. Since the Industrial Revolution, average global temperature has risen by a full degree Fahrenheit – seemingly very little. There are a number of reasons for global climate change, examples of which include the increased intensity of solar energy or the cyclicality of Earth’s temperatures, vulcanism, oceanic circulation cycles, biosphere impact, ultraviolet radiaton variability, reflectivity, rotational variation, solar systemic changes, galaxy positional variability, albedo and human inlfuence, to ame but a few. Most scientists understand the following. The impact of change in the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmospshere upon temperature change is a logarithmic one. This means that for each doubling of the amount of CO2, the temperature change is 1/10th the amount of the previous temperature change. The simple reason for this is that CO2 can only absorb so much sunlight at its wavelength (2082A). Think of it as a blanket placed over a window to block out the light. Put another blanket over the first one and the reduction in light in the room is minimal. This causes the atmosphere (and, subsequently, the ocean) to warm, but less and less so with increases in atmospheric CO2. Greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by various mechanisms, including through the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. Over the past fifty years, as the world economy and worldwide energy use has grown so too has the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. We are learning that changes in solar radiation have small but profound effects upon global temperatures, as do oceanic circulations (the PDO, ADO & MDCO) both horizontally and vertically. The ability of the oceans and the atmosphere to absorb and recycle all molecular constituents of the atmosphere, whatever their source, is currently beyond our understanding. The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the less intense the greenhouse effect is and the more slowly the atmosphere will heat up. This is contrary to the recent popular delusion of human induced climate change. To ascribe all change to one event – that of carbon dioxide created by man – is both sybaritic and hubristic. It is also quite foolish. We simply have no idea how the chaotic complexity of atmosphere, ocean, earth and biosphere work. All we know is how little we know after all these years of study – since the IGY of 1959. The absence of any change in global tempeature since 1998 gives lie to the assumptions of anthropogenic global climate change. GCMs (global climate models) notwithstanding, there is no physical evidence in support of this thesis. There are scaling differences (changing the context of the x/y graph to reflect desired results, modeling constraints ( parameterizing data sets put into the model runs), data mining (choosing pieces of information to support an hypothesis, i.e,m the hockey stick) and complete degradation or loss of data (the current Hadley and NOAA/NASA data disappearances). Peer review as a formal process of scientific discovery has been exposed recently as a means to support an incestous ideology rather than a way to objectively reveal new ideas as beneficial. The economics of the planet, for the investor, are best undestood from the perspective of capital budgets, free cash flow usage and yield sharing with owners. If an investment makes a reasonable investment of time, capital and human resource, which investment results in a profitable surplus of capital, which surplus is shared equitably with owners, then that is a wise investment. Natural gas pipelines, for example, exhibit these characteristics. The collection of a tariff for the passage of an inert gas through a terminal, pipeline or storage facility contributes to the dividend distribution to all shareholders. It also results in the changeover from oil based electrical generation to a less carbon based natural gas generation – at a lower unit cost, with efficiencies of scaling, locale and cost thrown in for good measure.Solar power exhibits an absence of these qualities. Make your decisions upon a frank assessment of financial facts rather than an ideological or wishful desire for altruism.

Effects

Scientists are predicting a number of adverse effects if the current global warming trends continue or increase in speed:

• Melting polar ice caps will cause rising sea levels and coastal flooding; melting glaciers and warmer temperatures in mountain regions will lead to decreased snowmelts, intensifying worldwide water scarcity.
• The influx of cold water from the poles will interact with the warming ocean water to cause oceanic temperature fluctuations across the globe, possibly causing global ecological damage as sensitive keystone organisms (plankton, for example) die in their new environments, leading to organisms that are higher in the food chain (tuna, for example) increasing in scarcity.
• Warmer air and water would cause more intense weather patterns; for example, warmer water creates more powerful hurricanes as it allows more water to evaporate and creates faster winds, making hurricane season more dangerous.
• Rapidly changing ocean salinity from polar fresh water could interact with the temperature fluctuations in the ocean to disrupt or even shift the Gulf Stream, an underwater current that is responsible for modern climate conditions. Were this to happen, weather patterns all over the world could “snap”, changing drastically in a period as short as ten years. Worldwide climate shifts could have major effects on agriculture all over the world.

Responses to Climate Change

Though many scientists agree that it is too late to stop some of the preliminary effects of climate change, almost all are in agreement that the process can be reversed by halting global warming. The only way for this to happen would be to stop releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than can naturally exit. It is predicted that this would take a worldwide reduction in greenhouse gas release of about 60% – an incredible amount considering the growth rates of developing countries like India and China, as well as the energy consumption of developed countries like the U.S. Governments all over the world are enlisting economists, politicians, and scientists to figure out how to prevent climate change; many governments around the world are instituting emissions caps, carbon trading schemes, and the use of clean, renewable energy sources like wind energy and solar power. These solutions may force a restructuring of the energy market; traditional forms of energy, like coal and oil, are thought to be contributing to global warming. Reducing emissions means reducing worldwide energy dependency on fossil fuels – a difficult transition, since fossil fuels are far more cost-effective than current forms of renewable energy. With Europe, Japan, and California taking the lead in adopting new energy standards and pressuring the U.S. and the developing world to do the same, however, the energy market is slowly but surely beginning to shift.

On February 4th, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley stated that they would put into effect a set of “Carbon Principles” by which they would give investment priority to clean energy groups, and force any company planning to build coal-powered plants to show how they would deal with the carbon dioxide pollution in order to get investment money.

Who Benefits

• Renewable energy companies like Suzlon, Suntech Power Holdings, MEMC Electronics, Plum Creek Timber, Vestas, SunPower, Sharp, Kyocera, Tyson Foods, and Bunge stand to benefit from the current mainstream belief that stopping global climate change requires stopping global temperatures from rising; most governments are intent on achieving this by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy forms like nuclear energy, biofuels, ethanol, and natural gas release fewer amounts of carbon dioxide than coal and oil. Solar power and wind energy are the cleanest forms of energy, and do not release any greenhouse gases. Most governments are pushing a transition to these forms of energy, and the increased demand for alternative energy sources could greatly benefit the above companies and industries.
• Raw materials providers, like Lowe’s, Home Depot, United States Steel, W.W. Grainger (GWW), Plum Creek Timber, Weyerhaeuser, and Alcoa, stand to benefit from the property damages caused by rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, and more frequent and more intense natural disasters.
• Some scientists argue that slightly warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels will benefit agriculture by stimulating crop growth and extending the length of the growing season. These benefits, however, would disappear if the global warming phenomenon caused too large a change in temperature.

Who Hurts

• Insurers like Allstate and reinsurers such as Renaissance Reinsurance, Ace limited, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) and XL Capital, are highly vulnerable to the damages caused by more powerful natural disasters, as they would bear the brunt of the reconstruction costs.
• Agriculture companies like ConAgra, DuPont, Monsanto, and Archer Daniels Midland could be hurt by fluctuating oceanic and atmospheric temperatures. Unstable temperatures have the potential to damage any industry that is reliant on agriculture, by killing crops and fish. These companies would be hurt by reductions in food production, which would raise costs and lower profits; any company that uses these agriculture companies as production inputs, from McDonald’s to Tyson Foods to Pepsi, would also be hurt by rising production costs.
• Increasing water scarcity from melting glaciers and declining winter precipitation would hurt water companies like Suez, Vivendi, and RWE, as dwindling supplies would damage productivity, raising costs. Industries that use water as inputs, like steel, iron, paper, petroleum, textile, and chemical, would also be damaged by rising water prices.
• Companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum, Peabody, Massey Energy and Arch Coal could be greatly damaged by a restructuring of the energy market. Energy paradigm shifts mean a major shift away from the established forms of energy that are currently releasing greenhouse gases. Oil and coal would suffer the greatest damages, as shifts away from coal powered electricity production and gas powered vehicles would lead to decreased demand, prices, and profits.

Related posts :

• 10 funny global warming pictures (4)
• Not in our interest (15)

Any liquid that stores energy, which is typically utilized by an engine or generator, can be called a “fuel.” The term “biofuels” encompasses a wide range of fuels, including vegetable oils, animal fats, ethanol, biodiesel (any oil or fat that undergoes transesterification to more closely resemble mineral-based fuel), and synfuel (fuel made from gasified organic matter, then liquefied to form fuel). The main common trait of all these fuels is that they are derived from organic biomass, rather than minerals.

Biofuels are made using a fairly simple process that typically involves harvesting feedstock, or the raw materials (e.g., soybeans, sugarcane), crushing the feedstock, separating the dry matter from the oil, then re-crushing and/or further processing to extract as much oil as possible. The resulting oil can then either be directly consumed (e.g., by vehicles with specially designed engines), further processed (e.g., into biodiesel), or blended with mineral-based fuel before being delivered to the end user at gas stations and depots around the world (the most common blends in the U.S. are E10 (10% percent ethanol blend) and E85 (85% ethanol blend). Only some biofuels, most notably biodiesel, can be used in traditional internal combustion engines. Other biofuels, such as ethanol, must be blended with mineral-based fuel in order to be used in existing engines.

The most common inputs into biofuels vary by country. In the U.S., corn and soybeans are most prevalent, while Europe tends to use flaxseed and rapeseed, Brazil sugarcane, and Asia palm oil. Brazil is in many ways the pioneer of the biofuels industry, having introduced ethanol from sugarcane (and flexfuel vehicles capable of running on ethanol) over 25 years ago as method to reduce dependence on oil imports.

In 2008, biofuels were worth $34.8 billion on the global market.^[1]

Trends and Forces

Break-even oil prices for various alternative fuel sources, courtesy of the White House Report of the President

New Research Shows that Bioelectricity is More Efficient than Biofuels

New research done at UC Merced and published in the journal Science in May 2009 presents evidence that crops yield 81% more energy per unit area of land when it is burned to make electricity to power cars than when it is refined into ethanol.^[2] Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions from this “bioelectricity” are 100% lower per unit area of land than cellulosic ethanol.^[3] Though this is one of the first studies supporting this idea, if future research continues to present such results, there is the potential for the validity of the entire biofuels industry to come into question.

Governments Support Biofuels, but Production May Not Meet Mandates

Governments around the world, for reasons that combine environmental friendliness, concerns over energy security, and a desire to support local farmers, have offered a wide variety of subsidies to biofuels. Typical subsidies include forgiveness of the consumption tax typically placed on fuel for vehicles, a tax credit for blenders who blend in biofuels with mineral-based fuels, and research subsidies and programs to develop new technologies for biofuels production. Beyond these subsidies, governments around the world have virtually guaranteed a market for biofuels by mandating biofuels usage to be blended with renewable fuels (e.g., the 2005 Energy Policy Act in the U.S. requires 4 billion gallons of biofuels consumption in 2006 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012). Congress later passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandates that renewable fuels production in the U.S. had to increase from 2007 levels of around 4.7 billion gallons per year to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 – 21 billion gallons per year of which need to come from cellulosic ethanol and other “advanced biofuels”^[4]In part thanks to mandates like these, demand for biofuels were expected to grow by 20% annually, to 92 million metric tons per year in 2011.^[5] A report released by the Energy Information Administration in December 2008, however, stated that the industry will not be able to meet these levels of production in time, given the price of oil and declining demand caused by the 2008 Financial Crisis.^[6] To counter these fears of low production, the U.S. Department of Energy announced in May 2009 that it would make available $800 million in funding for new biofuels research projects – right about the same time as the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would support higher biofuels production levels under the condition that producers cut greenhouse gas emissions of their refineries – including the emissions that are created during farming, transportation, blending, and consumption.^[7] All of this despite the hard facts that biofuel production removes food stock from the food chain for human and animal consumption requirements, increases demands upon soil, atmosphere and water and has a higher incidence of cost that any petroleum based fuel source. Food availability and farming directives worldwide have seen significant change in the past decade as a result of these diversions to biofuels. As a result, it is estimated that 100 million more people around the world have been forced into starvation status. The removal of food stock from their pantry has had an enormous impact upon the poorest of the poor, all of whom live in the third world. From a fuel productivity viewpoint, biofuels are far less efficient than any petroleum based fuel source: compute the toal cost of seed supply, irrigation requirements (water, pesticide, waste and runoff), manufacturing processes and distributon and consumption effects and one realizes how incredibly inefficient the concept of producing fuel from food truly is. It takes 34% mor energy to produce a comparable BTU from foodstock than from petroleum and 61% more than from natural gas. Only because of tax rents, political gains and legislative fiat can these devices creak along in some seblance of replacement technology. As an investor, how would one judge these choices? Is the cost inefficiency of biofuels, as previously stated, worth the supposed social and political result? Or, does it make more sense as an investor to own stocks and bonds in companies that make best use of modern technology, exploit market variances and provide a product or service in response to real – rather than perceived – need? Do you want to own a company that earns a dividend from the tariff on pipeline transportation of natural gas, or do you want to own a tax subsidized firm with no actual profits, entirely dependent upon the future largess of a polity with enormous vested interests, none of which generate a profit, much less a dividend? To add insult to injury see the following: ===== The European Union is imposing protectionist measures against U.S. biofuels ===== From 2006 to 2008, biodiesel imports to the European Union from the U.S. increased from 60,000 tonnes to 1.5 million tonnes; to support regional biofuels producers, of which 15 have gone bankrupt in the last two years, the European Union is adding tariffs on imported biofuels worth €29-41 per 100 kgs.^[8] This is meant to raise the price of imported biofuels in Europe, encouraging the use of fuels from local companies and reducing the use of American biofuels.

Price of Oil is Directly Correlated with Demand for Biofuels

Biofuels still represent a tiny fraction of total fuel consumption (to put it in perspective, total gasoline and diesel consumption in the U.S. is roughly 180 billion gallons, versus 4 billion gallons of biofuels consumption in 2006), and as a result, the price of biofuel is driven by the price of it’s nearest substitute, oil. As oil prices rise, it becomes increasingly attractive to produce biofuels, and more feedstocks for biofuels become economically viable.

The Drop in Oil Prices and Contraction of Credit Markets Resulting from the 2008 Financial Crisis and Ensuing Recession Mean Reducing Demand for and Investment in Biofuels

From 2007 through June of 2008, oil prices experienced a strong increase, surging up past $145 on July 3rd^[9] before plummeting to below $50 in December^[10] – right after the NBER announced an economic recession. The decline in oil prices has done tremendous damage to the biofuels industry by making gasoline much more economically friendly. Furthermore, the credit crunch that preceded and, indeed, strengthened during the Financial Crisis means that biofuels companies are going to find it harder to raise capital, as investors no longer want to take risks, which is exactly what biofuels companies are doing in trying to supplant gasoline.

Price/availability of feedstock

The majority of the production cost of biofuels comes from the cost of the raw materials, or feedstock, used to produce them. Therefore, as feedstock prices increase, producing biofuels becomes less profitable. As a result, biofuels producers are constantly considering alternative feedstocks— for example, the recent run-up in corn prices and wheat prices (see chart below), both of which can be used for biofuels, has led several major biofuels players to diversify into other biofuels technologies. Utlimately, biofuels may even drive up the prices of other fruits and vegetables, as farmers convert more land to biofuels feedstock.

Algal biofuels are changing the biofuel space in respect to the fact that the “feedstock” for an algal biofuel is primarily carbon dioxide gas. Large quantities of carbon dioxide will be necessary to scale up algal biofuels production and will necessitate the placement of algal biofuels plants in close proximity to sources of carbon dioxide, such as coal burning and natural gas burning power plants where the effluent can be tapped as the feedstock for the algae. However, the potential of algal biofuels is enormous; existing strains of algae can produce 2000 gallons of fuel per acre, compared to 250 gallons per acre for corn. However, the cost of producing algal biofuels stands at $33/gallon, versus $2/barrel for Saudi crude, necessitating further development before it is fully competitive.^[11]

Many ethanol companies, ironically, are also exposed to falling corn prices, because of hedging against price cuts. VeraSun Energy went bankrupt in October 2008 because the company placed bets on rising corn prices once they hit $8 in June 2008. During the financial crisis of 2008, however, when commodities prices fell and the value of corn dropped by half, the company was left illiquid, unable to pay off its derivatives.^[12]

Second-generation biofuels use non-food feedstocks like grass and reeds to make biofuels, which would make the cost of the fuel independent of food prices. These feedstocks are lauded for growing well on land that wouldn’t support food, freeing up land capacity, but environmentalists are skeptical because many of the plants that are expected to be used are categorized as “invasive species”. The have a high likelihood of spreading outside of the growing land and using resources, thereby killing native plants as well as food crops on adjoining lands.^[13] Because of this, environmentalists have appealed to the United Nations to ban or limit using such feedstocks to refine biofuels.

Companies who stand to benefit

Monthly corn prices from United States Department of Agriculture, in $ per bushel

Companies with control of feedstocks and vertically integrated biofuels refiners (i.e., refiners with exclusive control over supply of feedstocks) will benefit from the rise in biofuels, as they can offer commercial-scale supply of an increasingly scare commodity. Archer Daniels Midland, with its dominance of the corn-based ethanol market in the U.S. and an increasingly diversified portfolio of biofuels feedstocks overseas, should continue to benefit. Cargill, another large feedstock player, is privately held. It is expected, however, that despite these companies’ market strengths, they will only exert control over around 30% of the market for biofuels thanks to the rapid expansion of the market.^[14]

Suppliers to the biofuels sector, especially construction companies with refinery expertise and equipment suppliers, should benefit from a biofuels boom, regardless of which feedstocks or refiners end up on top. These would include Lurgi, the market leader in providing turnkey biofuels refineries, and Titan International, which manufactures wheels and tires for makers of farm machinery. Both will benefit from increased investment in biofuels. In addition, Caterpillar (CAT)’s role in agricultural equipment supply will also make them benefit from any drive towards increased farming activity.

Along the same lines, chemical companies and seed suppliers should benefit from a biofuels boom. Monsanto, in particular, would likely benefit, as concerns regarding the safety of its genetically modified (GM) seeds for human consumption would be nullified if they were used to produce biofuels. Dow Chemical has also been developing a robust chemicals program for use with biofuels. Diversa (DVSA) is another major producer of enzymes used to make biofuels from biomass and cellulosic feedstocks.

A number of oil refining companies, including every one of the majors, are investing in biofuels production. Even Exxon, who had previously stayed out of the renewable energy industry, is entering the market. In July, 2009, the company entered a five-year, $600 million partnership with Synthetic Genomics Incorporated, to develop algae-based biofuels.^[15]

Companies who stand to lose

Contrary to popular belief, pure-play biofuels refineries may not necessarily benefit from a biofuels boom, as biofuels refining is not technically complicated, with relatively low capital expenditures. Capital, and new competitors, are flooding the market for biofuels refining, fueled at least in part by the current low interest environment. Rising feedstock costs, for those who are not vertically integrated, could ultimately eat into profit margins. Pure-play refiners such as Pacific Ethanol or Aventine would fall into this camp.

Companies who rely on biofuels feedstocks for alternate uses are also at risk, should a biofuels boom drive up the price of feedstocks. Tyson Foods, which is a major consumer of corn for its chicken feed, would be particularly negatively impacted— Credit Suisse First Boston estimates that every 10-cent increase in the price of a bushel of corn cuts 5 cents per share of profit from Tyson. This negative impact will ultimately depend on which feedstock for biofuels “wins”— corn and soybeans have benefited greatly in the short-term, but over the long-term, cellulosic ethanol or sugarcane could end up salvaging Tyson’s profitability. The rise in corn prices has already reportedly caused riots in Mexico over excessive tortilla prices.

Companies competing for acreage with biofuels companies may find themselves out of luck as a result of the biofuels boom. For example, breweries such as SAB Miller or Heineken will face the double challenge of struggling to find acreage for growing barley and rising cost of other commodity inputs into the brewing process. Either way, biofuels may be on the rise and a good thing to keep an eye out for.

References

1. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “Solar, Wind and Biofuels’ Impressive Growth Surge in ‘08″
2. ↑ CNET: “Study: Bioelectricity bests biofuels on miles per acre”
3. ↑ CNET: “Study: Bioelectricity bests biofuels on miles per acre”
4. ↑ HR 6 Energy Bill Summary
5. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “World Market for Biofuels Expected to Double”
6. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “Biofuel Industry Won’t Meet Government Production Targets After All”
7. ↑ SeekingAlpha: Feds Propose Controversial Biofuel Mandate, Offer $800M to Boost Production
8. ↑ FT: “EU slaps tariffs on US biodiesel”
9. ↑ The Industry Standard: “Oil prices spike to $150 a barrel by July 4″
10. ↑ Financial Times: “Crude oil prices tumble $100 in five months”
11. ↑ Hard Assets Investor: Exxon: A Biofuel Bet?
12. ↑ Financial Times: Lex: “Ethanol producers”
13. ↑ The New York Times: “New Trend in Biofuels Has New Risks”
14. ↑ SeekingAlpha: “World Market for Biofuels Expected to Double”
15. ↑ Hard Assets Investor: Exxon: A Biofuel Bet?

Related posts :

• Clean coal (1)
• Green energy (4)