Related Articles

Economic crisis via Shutterstock



I don't think there's anyone out there who hasn't given some thought, at one point or another, to the Wall Street financial catastrophe of 2007 that turned the global economy into the shambles it is today. The debacle has been justly attributed to questionable practices in the mortgage market and the financial sector - in other words, to bankers' greed and lack of adequate oversight.

But a few days ago, after subjecting data on Wall Street activities to an awful lot of mathematics and statistical analysis, three researchers from the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI) pointed the finger at yet another culprit: a large and still unidentified group of Wall Street traders who, in the first week of November, 2007, carried out an illegal form of market manipulation called a "bear raid" via short-selling stock, that pushed the already teetering Citigroup straight over the cliff and presumably put a lot of money into the traders' own pockets.

A bear raid is the collective short-selling of shares - that is, when a trader sells a certain amount of borrowed shares, then buys them back and returns them to their owner(s), while keeping the difference - while at the same time manipulating the market in order to cause a decline in the prices of said shares, so as to maximize the profit. This practice is illegal in the United States and a strict preventive rule - the uptick rule - was implemented by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), starting in 1938, as mandated by the U.S.

Congress. However, the SEC repealed the uptick rule in the summer of 2007, as part of the deregulatory craze that eventually led to an uncontrollable financial sector. As a result, the bear raid on Citigroup went undetected until -well, just now. Even more frighteningly, there's no sound rule in place today that could prevent something like that from happening again.

The NECSI report is significant for several reasons. First, it provides more information on the ongoing weaknesses and inherent instability of our global economic system. More importantly, it provides yet another good argument against the basic justification behind the deregulatory process - that markets are transparent and therefore do not need to be supervised and kept in check.

The bear raid on Citigroup in the fall of 2007 underscores the naivete - or maybe plain old hypocrisy, take your pick - of such an assumption. The government should take notice, but so far the NECSI researchers haven't received any response from the relevant financial and governmental institutions. And that, if you ask me, is a very good reason for concern.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

The economic environment: Addressing global warming more complex since global financial crisis

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/bear-raid-global-economy/1709/ business Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:00:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/bear-raid-global-economy/1709/

Green Jobs and Work via Shutterstock



At Day 2 of COP 17, South Africa launched it's master-plan for green jobs, merging the green agenda with the red (socio-economic); the Green Economy Accord (GEA) has an ambitious but welcomed target of just over a quarter of a million new jobs, green jobs in a green energy manufactoring sector from energy production to green productsto green-agri-business with the aim to reduce carbon emissions. In addition the GEA wishes to address soil, environmental management and eco-tourism.

The GEA targets as follows:

- 1 million solar water-heating systems in SA by 2014.
- Expanded production on clean stoves not just for SA but the entire African continent.
- Biofuels industry support - includes support to small farmers.
- Mass transit overhaul with a freight shift from road to rail.
- Financial mechanisms support for green projects.
- Youth upliftment with a bold target of 80% of new job allocations to young workers.
- Environmental education programme support at school level.
- Govt will procure 3 725 MW of renewable energy for the national grid by 2016.
- Solar and Wind Energy sub-sectors aim to create 50 000 green jobs by 2020.
- Solar powered generation units at a total of 300 000 to be installed on the roof-tops of residential, commercial and industrial buildings by 2020.
- 25 billion ZAR over 5 years is being committed by the state-owned Industrial Development Corporation for investments in the Green Economy.
- Business to commit to environmental performance of existing production facilities. "It will develop benchmarks for energy efficiency by industry as well as company management plans (SA Govt, 2011)."
- The implementation of the SA National Energy Efficiency Strategy with targets for reducing energy intensity targets by:

* 10% reduction - commercial + public buildings.
* 15% - residential
* 10% - transport
* 15% - mining
* 15% - industry

- GEA expands with ground-level changes at factory-level with organised labour playing a role in energy efficiency activity and monitoring.
- GEA includes the objective of a mass-transport reformation to reduce the private vehicle usage with an investment of 20 billion ZAR by the SA rail company by 2014. 63 billion ZAR is being committed by the parastatal TransNet to overhaul the freight rail system over the next 5 years.

It sounds really progressive but while I read this I can't help thinking about what is really happening on the ground. Two new mass production coal-fired power stations, utilising raw-materials by another huge carbon outputer, the mining sector; toxic nuclear industry, the proposed fracking of gas in the pristine groundwater of the Karoo, years of human rights protests post-apartheid on the lack of service delivery and then the huge cut-offs of electricity and water, human rights supplies to the poorest of the poor, the huge financial disempowerec of the poor with cost-recovery processes on human rights water and energy. One can't simple ignore the ground-truth just because one is totally uplifted by ambitious paper-targets that will take us into a new era of energy efficiency.

But really what does this mean - that the new coal-fired energy and toxic industry from raw materials to waste will be OFFSET by the the GEA? So does offsetting mean that if one emits toxic gases taht cause untold human health and environmental degradation that is irreparable that one can be energy efficient and all is well?

Really I can't turn a blind eye to the obvious inference or direct statement that industry aka the polluters will set benchmarks and have we not experienced industrial self-regulation to our detriment - one can not self-regulate one owns polluting behaviour? I would love to issue myself with traffic fines but then I don't think I'd ever be that harsh on myself?

Does this mean that the state method of squeezing 'blood from a stone', in the form of forced evictions, water and electricity cuts will finally come to a halt? Will the crimininalisation of legitimate people's protest on the non-delivery of the freedom charter also come to a halt?

I think the GEA is a wonderful commitment if all the other parallel discrepancies are addressed at the same time.

Once again 'Action Speaks Louder than Words!' 'Phansi (Down) with Fronting Phansi!'



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

Green grows the building sector
India to Push for Cleaner, Greener Technology
Stay True to your Beliefs with a Green Job

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/south-africa-green-economy-accord/1667/ business Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:06:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/south-africa-green-economy-accord/1667/

Water pumping station via Shutterstock



The Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center revealed last week that earlier this month a hacker shut down a pump at a central Illinois water utility serving 2,200 customers. The event is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure, most of which is operated via remote software called SCADA, to cyber attack.

The attack, which appears to have originated in Russia, seems to be the first foreign cyber attack on US critical infrastructure. The event highlights the double edged nature of an increasingly automated water distribution infrastructure: on the one hand, advanced SCADA systems have increased operational efficiency; on the other, public health and safety is at risk to cyber attacks.

The water utility in question has not been named, only described as a small rural utility in central Illinois. The attackers gained access to the utility's system by lifting passwords from a SCADA software development company, and began cycling a water pump off and on until it failed, on November 8. Back up pumps activated automatically, preventing disruption of water service.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security are investigating the incident. A bit absurdly, DHS has downplayed the attack, stating that 'there is no credible corroborated data that indicates a risk to critical infrastructure entities or a threat to public safety.' This notion did not sit well with a hacker called Prof, who posted on Pastebin a scathing rebuke of what he considers the malaise with which the DHS is responding to the event and critical infrastructure protection in general. He writes: "I dislike, immensely, how the DHS tend to downplay how absolutely f***** the state of national infrastructure is."

To prove the vulnerability of SCADA systems and twist the proverbial blad, he claimed to have accessed the South Houston Wastewater Department's SCADA system, posting screen shots of the software program to prove it. In a final twist, he says that the hack required 'no skill' and could be 'reproduced by a two year old.' The FBI and DHS are now also investigating this incident, the purpose of which, Prof claims, is to simply prove a point, not cause harm.

Representative Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), co-founder of the House Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus co-founder Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), and Prof are on the same page when it comes to their distaste for the seemingly lackadasical approach to combating cyber attacks at critical infrastructure facilities.

To The Hill, Rep. Langevin stated: "I'm greatly concerned about security of our critical infrastructure and its vulnerability to a cyber attack.....We have a lot of work to do and I don't think that the owners and operators of the electric grid in particular or water and sewer treatment plants are taking this threat seriously enough. But the potential attack that took place in Springfield, Illinois, should be a real wake-up call."

Rep. Langevin, in 2010, introduced a bill that would have created a National Office for Cyberspace which would 'oversee the security of agency information systems and infrastructure'. The bill passed the House but floundered in the Sentate. The EPA, who is tasked with the protection of water and wastewater infrastructure as the hauntingly Orwellian sounding Homeland Safety Presidential Directive 7, should be particularly interested in the goings on.

The embattled agency, which is likely seeing its budget cut, oversees the enforcement of various Homeland Security Directives applicable to water utilities as well as the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, which requires water utilities to prepare vulnerability assessments and develop plans to mitigate or prevent emergencies. As part of its responsibilities, EPA is required to develop what's known as a Sector Specific Plan for protecting the nation's water and wastewater infrastructure.

The latest version, published in 2010, mentions the development of a plan, called the Cybersecurity Roadmap, to enhance cybersecurity related to water and wastewater infrastructure. The Sector Specific Plan blandly states that the 'Water Sector is following the path laid out by Cybersecurity Roadmap', pointing out that several cycbersecurity workshops have been held. Workshops, however, do not make a secure SCADA infrastructure.

The incidents in Illinois and Texas should stimulate renewed focus on these cybersecurity efforts. Cyberattacks, after all, will likely grow, particularly as more systems become more automated. A key piece will be ensuring security alongside operational efficiency. Workshops may not be enough to ensure this happens. The release of the Stuxnet virus on Iranian nuclear infrastructure earlier this year, which has been linked to the US, stoked anxiety about retribution. Foreign attackers, emboldened by the use of cyber weapons by the US, would fight fire with fire and begin attacking US infrastructure. It appears this fear has come true, and the events of late indicate water is a prime and vulnerable target.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

UK retailers beat green targets
Talking water at Davos
Avoiding accidents on ice
Possible gypsum deposit may reveal Martian mysteries
Will drought in Mexico spur surge in emigration to the US?

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/water-systems-hacked-illinois-texas/1644/ business Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:19:25 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/water-systems-hacked-illinois-texas/1644/

Picking Cotton via Shutterstock



Beverage companies have long been aware of the risks water presents to its business, and now clothing companies, like Gap and Levi Strauss, are realizing how this resource, or lack thereof, can impact their bottom line. Earlier this year cotton prices reached an all time high due to massive output reductions brought on by drought and water shortages in Texas, India, Pakistan, and Brazil.

Rising prices prompted Gap to cut its annual profit forecast by 22%, prompting a $4 decline in its stock value. Hovering around $19 per share, the stock has never recovered. Companies raised costs by 10 to 15%, resulting a dip in sales. Clearly, water shortages and crop reductions are a big risk.

Levi Strauss, unlike Gap, seemed to grasp this. Levi's performed a water footprint analysis of its products and chose to develop a water risk management strategy based on the findings, whereas Gap seems to have developed a very limited strategy based solely on convenience. In short, Levi's has developed a strategy to address water risk in its supply chain, operations, and consumer base, where Gap has focused solely on operations, a strategy that may yield short term bottom line benefits but insufficient to address risks water may have on long term sustainability.



Jeans via Shutterstock

In 2009, Levi's hired Ceres to perform a water footprint analysis of its products. The results indicated that, throughout its life, each pair of jeans requires about 919 gallons of water. This includes water used for growing cotton, manufacturing, and washing. The findings indicated that manufacturing and operations represented only 6% of water use, whereas cotton farming and washing represented 49 and 45%, respectively.

Smartly, the company chose a three prong approach. First, it elected to address risk in the supply chain by joining the Better Cotton Initiative and investing in water management and technologies for its cotton farmers. Second, the company has rolled out its WaterLess Initiative which focuses on its manufacturing and operations. A component of this initiative includes a new line of jeans smoothed with rocks instead of water. Third, the company has embarked on a consumer education campaign. New labels recommend washing jeans only once per week or, instead of putting them in a traditional washing machine, putting them in the freezer to kill germs.

This is a gutsy strategy. It shows Levi's has taken the long view and begun investing in strategies that have limited short term benefits but profound long term benefits. Simply focusing on operations is convenient and easy. Addressing water risk in the supply chain, though critical to the bottom line, is much more difficult, as it requires making investments in far flung farmers, each of whom have their own peculiar water issues, and accurately calculating return on these investments can be dicey at best. Investing in consumer education initiatives may reduce your product's water footprint, but it may or may not impact your bottom line. It is conceivable, however, that the legions of environmentally conscious consumers could be drawn to your product, but again it's a tough investment since its bottom line impacts are largely unknown.

Other clothing companies, like Gap, may want to have a good look at Levi's water management initiatives. Water scarcity will only grow. This week the world's population exceeded 7b and another 3b could be added by century's end. Should these companies wish to survive in an increasingly thirsty world, they'll have to minimize their water inputs by investing in holistic strategies that address water use throughout the life of their products. This requires a critical first step, one that Levi's has already taken: measuring their water footprint. After all, one can not manage what one can not measure.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

'Bags for life' face reuse concerns
Arizona's cotton growers target invasive pest with new strategy

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/clothing-companies-concerned-water-risk/1599/ business Sat, 05 Nov 2011 18:30:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/clothing-companies-concerned-water-risk/1599/

Coca-Cola World Headquarters via Shutterstock



Coca Cola in Japan has announced that it has voluntarily been striving to reduce power consumption in its vending machines in an effort to address the power shortages that have affected Japan since the earthquake. They have committed to continuing this effort during Winter.

The effort will run from December 2011 through until March 2012 and will conduct energy saving measures by stopping compressor functions in the peak hours. They will also further reduce power usage by reducing the amount of lighting used on the vending machines on the illuminated models outside during the day and will switch off all lighting 24 hours a day on vending machines that are installed in doors.

A spokesman for Coca Cola Japan said in a press release, "We will consider appropriate measures for other areas while taking into consideration the condition of power provision and the views of local and national governments as well as those of the power companies." It continued, "We have introduced roughly 150,000 heat pumps in the Coca-Cola system, and have been strongly promoting energy saving in vending machines by introducing vending machines that especially reduce energy consumption such as "ecoru/Solar" and "green roof" vending machines."



Coca-Cola vending machine with energy reducing LED lighting via Shutterstock

The heat pump technology mentioned is a technology which actually absorbs the heat from the surrounding atmosphere and converts it into electricity by using a compressor. Effectively, it means that vending machines with heat pumps can use the hot air expelled when cooling products to be used to heat up other warm goods in the vending machine.

Since the announcement, Coca Cola have also decided that starting in 2012 that, wherever possible, new vending machines will have LED lighting for the product displays which use much less energy than standard light bulbs. They are also looking for further ways at producing vending machines that use less energy without compromising the user experience.

It is expected that these new energy saving advances in Japan are likely to be used across the world in all new Coca Cola vending machines as a means of protecting the environment and costing less money to run.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/coca-cola-reduce-power-consumption-vending-machines-earthquake/1569/ business Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:07:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/coca-cola-reduce-power-consumption-vending-machines-earthquake/1569/

Shipping Industry via Shutterstock



The Sustainable Shipping Iniative (SSI) has signatories that span five continents and consists of global companies and NGO's, including ABN AMRO bank N.V., BP Shipping, Bunge, Cargill, Carnival, China Navigation Co., Daewoo Shipbuilding, Gearbulk, Lloyd's Register, Maersk Line, Rio Tinto Marine, Royal Sun Alliance, Tsakos Energy Navigation, Unilever and Wartsila. The group have a combined market value of over half a trillion dollars.

They will today, on the 31st October, present their goals and visions for 2040 regarding the sustainable future of international shipping. The three main challenges in the current market are rising oil prices, structural shifts in world trade and the rising importance of the industry's social and environmental performance which is under more and more scrutiny as time goes by.

The Founder Director of Forum for the Future said, "Shipping has reached a crossroads. After years of focusing on a commodity-focused 'boom and bust' business model, leaders in the industry have aligned to ask more of themselves - emphasising the urgent need to take the lead in reshaping the entire industry ahead of regulation."

The presentation will take place today in London at 6:30pm GMT and breaks the vision down into five main subjects: Communities, Employment, Energy and Environment, Governance and Innovation.

The communities aspect of the presentation represents becoming a more trusted and responsible partner in the local communities that they operate in while the employment subject is about providing a high standard of work environment for the 2 million people working in the shipping industry and making sure that health and safety are a priority.

In Energy and Environment, the vision is to diversify the mix of energy used in the shipping industry to increase efficiency and reduce the impact on the environment.

In Governance, it is suggested that there is greater transparency and accountability at corporate and industry levels and on the innovation subject there is a vision on future technology innovations that will improve performance and sustainability of the shipping industry.

Maersk Line Chief Operating Officer, Morten H. Engelstoft, said: "We are in business for the long - term and therefore take an active role in defining the future we want to be part of. Delivering on a joint vision for our industry will help drive a needed change in operating models - thereby allowing economies to grow, trade to develop and social wealth to spread."

It is recognised that the impact of today's meetings can heavily impact on the future of the industry and the way it is seen by the public as well as the long term impact on people's lives, jobs and the environment and therefore great consideration and time has been taken over all the elements involved.

Royal Sun Alliance Marine Director, Richard Turner, said: "As one of the world's leading marine insurers, we are delighted to be part of the coalition. A framework of this kind will prove invaluable in safeguarding the future of the industry and helping to mitigate the environmental impact of shipping."

The Chief Supply Chain Officer at Unilever, Pier-Luigi Sigismondi, said: "Unilever has a bold ambition to double its business and halve its environmental impact and has underpinned this ambition with the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan; nothing less than the basis of a new business model. Quite simply, the only way we will achieve our ambition is by working in partnerships with all our stakeholders - from suppliers to NGOs. With shipping being an increasingly important part of supply chain, the Sustainable Shipping Initiative (SSI) represents a unique opportunity to reduce environmental impact not only for Unilever, but right across the industry."

There were various other comments of note from SSI partners including the Bunge Managing Director Ocean Freight Giovanni Ravano said: "Bunge is committed to improving the sustainability of the global food and agricultural production chain. To do so requires attention to our own operations, but also the promotion of better agricultural practices and more sustainable logistics. Shipping is a natural focus, and we believe the multi-stakeholder approach of the Sustainable Shipping Initiative is an excellent way to design and promote positive ideas and solutions. Bunge is proud to sign off on this vision and participate actively to the work stream."

The heads of the companies in this essential sector have all come together to provide a long-term plan. The shipping sector has changed drastically over the years and with more expectations from customers combined with more pressure from rising costs and environmental factors, it is recognised that the industry will have to make a lot of big adaption's to stay competitive. The first steps will being at 6:30pm tonight when the ideas and goals are made public.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

CCC says International Shipping Emissions should potentially be included in 2050 targets
Kill ship speed not whales, say wildlife conservation groups
Arctic coasts slipping away
Hybrid tugboat - environmentally friendly shipping

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/shipping-industry-meets-to-present-future-for-2040/1562/ business Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:19:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/shipping-industry-meets-to-present-future-for-2040/1562/

Job search via Shutterstock



If you look at the facts, job creation vs. economic regulations shouldn't even be a debate. A briefing from Economics for Equity and Environment (E3) states, as its first point, that "Reduced oil imports would create jobs." The money we saved on oil would be spent at home, on things like alternative energy development, to the tune of 900,000 new jobs for every $100 billion decrease in spending on oil. Pretty neat, right?

It gets better. Layoffs due to environmental regulations will be minimal, say the E3 economists. They'll account for about 1/10th of one percent of all layoffs throughout the U.S. Meanwhile, economists with the Political Economy Research Institute predicted in 2009 that clean energy investments and increased environmental regulations would lead to a net increase of 1.7 million jobs. The construction and manufacturing industries will experience high rates of job growth, because those greener buildings and innovations need people to build them. Green designers such as architects and engineers will also find increased opportunities.

Investing in clean energy would stimulate the economy too, having a positive effect in jobs in other fields as well, says the 2009 study. The researchers predicted that federal investments in energy efficiency, cleaner transportation, and renewable energy would play major roles in stimulating the economy.

Some claim that regulations will lead companies to set up shop abroad. Not so fast, experts say. Doesn't moving all of one's operations overseas come with a high price tag? As you might expect, it does. Research has shown that companies rarely relocate abroad due to increased environmental regulations, as a recent New York Times article says. Instead, companies simply adapt.

Complying with regulations is often well within a company's means. Usually it amounts to less than 2 percent of business costs. Often, avoiding pollution actually helps a company's bottom line by avoiding waste. Regulations force companies to get more creative, devising ways to avoid polluting so they don't need to worry about cleaning up after it.

As Kristen Sheeran points out in an article on Real Climate Economics, we should be concerned first and foremost with the net gain or loss of jobs. Workers in particular companies may lose jobs due to increased regulations, but other industries may add more jobs. Yes, coal miners will have to adapt, say economists, as jobs in this industry decrease. However, adaptation is the rule, not the exception, for any economy.

Furthermore, considering loss (or gain) of jobs in isolation of other considerations, such as improved health, fails to fully analyze how increased environmental regulations would benefit quality of life. With improved environmental conditions, health increases, and people spend less on healthcare. They miss less work, and stay more productive. And yes, health does relate directly to the environment - poor air quality can cause asthma, as well as other respiratory and heart diseases. Jobs aren't the only concern of workers, politicians must consider - workers are also concerned about their children's health, their own health, and avoiding costly healthcare bills that would never be necessary in a cleaner environment.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

UK retailers beat green targets
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline
Sea Shepherd anti-whaling activists injured in clash with Yushin Maru No 2
Ice cores to reveal climate change data
Green policies are not to blame for your heating bills

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/environmental-regulations-create-jobs-economists-say/1560/ business Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:16:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/environmental-regulations-create-jobs-economists-say/1560/

Charging an electric car via Shutterstock

A coalition of major motor companies has announced an agreement to standardise the charging points they use for their electric vehicles across two continents. German auto giants Audi, BMW, Porsche, Volkswagen, and Daimler have joined forces with Ford and General Motors to announce the synchronisation of both their charging hardware and the way vehicles 'talk' to the charging points.

"Agreeing upon a single, harmonized DC fast charging system, we believe will help infrastructure planning, reduce vehicle complexity and improve the ownership experience for electric vehicle customers," a statement from the group says.



Ford Focus Electric © Zoran Karapancev / Shutterstock

The manufacturers have all signed up to use the HomePlug Green PHY system of communication with vehicles, a so-called 'smart grid' approach which attempts to reduce power consumption by targeting power generation and supply where and when it is most needed using information technology.

The seven strong group says that there are several gainers from their new deal: car builders will have a simpler job making new electrically charged vehicles; power suppliers too will have less to worry about as they try and please all vehicle owners, who say the group, will also benefit from a standardised system.

And, the new charging system does not render obsolete those which have gone before. Users of two previously separate standardised systems in Europe and America will be able to plug their vehicles into the new system.

Electric vehicle ownership will become more attractive, say the seven car manufacturers, if any owner knows they can pull up to any charging point - petrol is, after all, universally compatible - knowing they can juice up their car.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

Tokyo fuels OK!
New crash-proof battery is 25% lighter
Tackling the electric car doubters
Hawaiian government agrees green car deal with Japanese company
WattStation could open consumer charge to electric vehicles

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/new-vehicle-charging-standard-electric-car-market-manufacturers/1505/ business Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:56:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/new-vehicle-charging-standard-electric-car-market-manufacturers/1505/

Sustainable business via Shutterstock

With the British economy on shaky ground, many might assume that the concept of sustainable business practices might be put on the back burner.

A report from ENDS (Environmental Data Services) would suggest that this is not the case. While recent figures show some negative trends, the last five years have shown movement in the right direction.

The report is quick to identify possible reasons for the positive findings and describes the realisation by big business that being green can be profitable. It also suggests that, as tough economic situations bite into profits, companies looking to improve efficiency are noticing that these changes often go hand-in-hand with sustainability changes.

In particular resource usage is a key factor and businesses are looking for ways to expand without this increasing. Reducing water and fuel usage and decreasing the amount of waste generated by business activities helps both the planet and their bottom lines.

One of the statistics that might cause some alarm shows that UK carbon emissions (from sources covered by the EU emissions trading scheme) have increased by 2.4% this year. To help balance this unwelcome news, the report explains that this follows a dramatic drop of 12.5% in the previous year.

To give the figures more context, since 2005 (and the introduction of the EU emissions trading scheme) the overall change has been -2.1%. This is a poor result but at least it is a reduction rather than an increase.

The positive findings of the report include strong decreases in incidents of major pollution (-54% over 5 years) and hazardous waste (-44.3% over 5 years). It also shows very positive figures for environmental certification (+76.9%), reporting (+81.3%) and education (+33.6%).

These figures all remained positive over the last year in contrast to the tougher objectives such as carbon emission reduction and energy efficiency improvements.

It seems a shame that despite efforts to work towards a more sustainable future, the UK evidently needs to work harder to meet the targets that really matter.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

University of Michigan invests in sustainability
New African venture will reduce deforestation, improve sustainability
Solar power and tree planting: IKEA's growing greener
Preserving British film heritage in the BFI's Master Film Store
Anna Maria Island aims for zero emissions

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/uk-sustainable-business-making-progress-harder/1494/ business Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:44:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/uk-sustainable-business-making-progress-harder/1494/

Wall Street via Shutterstock

If you're convinced lower taxes for corporations and higher bonuses for CEOs will help people and the environment, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It's a crash course in what happens when corporations are left to their own devices.

Yes, the Occupy Wall Street movement is still developing its focus, but the basic point is hard to miss: The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans are profiting at the expense of the rest of us, and our environment. In fact, says sociology professor Dr. G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz, "both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%." The salaries of the top 0.1% average over $27 million, while 90% of the American people average roughly $31,000. 

The belief that higher corporate profits will somehow create jobs has proven itself a pipe dream. Wall Street profits rose 720% between 2007 and 2009 (yes, you're reading that correctly) while unemployment rose by 102%. Are we to believe that we just need to wait a few more years, and these jobs will magically appear? Furthermore, are we to accept that our environmental crisis will halt until corporations decide to take on that challenge at some unspecified point in the future?

Business Insider reported in February that the U.S. will lose $628.6 billion in corporate taxes over a five year period, due to tax loopholes. The U.S. may have a high tax rate, at 35 percent, but the reality is that large corporations often leverage their power to avoid paying. There are credits for producing at home. There are credits for operating abroad. Corporations can get a 20 percent tax credit for research and development that they would probably pursue anyway because it makes them more competitive.

Thirty-seven companies in the Standard & Poor Index, including Citigroup and AIG, earned more in tax credits than they actually paid, says Business Insider.

Meanwhile, the U.S. scrimps and saves by making funding cuts in areas like education, science, and the environment. Demonstrators hitting the streets in cities throughout the U.S. and the world know that without progress in these areas, our future is stark. Cleaning up our environment, working to make cleaner sources of energy more available, and upholding strong environmental regulations would all create jobs and strengthen our economy, many believe. This seems a far more logical solution than business as usual, which has proven itself no solution to rising poverty, unemployment, and environmental destruction.

In a recent slam against human rights and our environment, the House passed the TRAIN act, notorious for putting corporate rights before human and environmental rights. The TRAIN act, if passed by the Senate and upheld by the President (who has promised to veto it if necessary), would require the EPA to consider how its regulations affect corporations, putting corporate profits before the planet and the people. This is a blatant human rights offense, as 80 million people in the U.S. already live in places where air quality falls short of U.S. standards, causing lung problems, asthma, and other health conditions to skyrocket.

At the same time, the U.S. audits far more small companies than larger ones. As CNN Money reported in 2008, "The IRS recently made an inexplicable decision to increase audits of small companies while easing up on large firms. In fact, the smallest companies saw the taxman 41% more often in 2007 than in 2005."

The article continues, "Meanwhile, companies with more than $250 million in assets were almost 40% less likely to be audited than in previous years--even though an average audit hour of large firms earned the IRS about $7,500...while a similar hour directed at smaller companies turned up $474."

"I came up empty of any rational explanation," said the director of the study that revealed these figures, conducted by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, as quoted in the article.

But there is an explanation: The leaders entrusted with upholding our rights are instead profiting from helping wealthy corporations grow wealthier. Sadder yet, they've convinced portions of the 90 percent of Americans earning an average of roughly $31,000 to support them. The rallies taking place around the nation are a wakeup call to those of us who work and pay our taxes, or search desperately for some job, any job, even one far below our level of education and experience. We must stand up for our own rights and the future of our environment, because wealthy corporations and the politicians who support them certainly won't do so on their own.



© The Earth Times. You must request expressed, written consent to copy, reprint, rewrite, republish or otherwise reproduce this material either in part or in full on any medium. If this notice is showing you do not have permission.


Published on The Earth Times

Related Articles

WSJ letter downplaying global warming is a call to play with fire

]]> http://www.earthtimes.org/business/occupy-wall-street-taxes-jobs-environment/1492/ business Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:10:00 GMT http://www.earthtimes.org/business/occupy-wall-street-taxes-jobs-environment/1492/