<![CDATA[Grist - Business]]> http://www.grist.org/kingdom/business Grist Kingdom Feed Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:25:33 -0800 en <![CDATA[Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=01a61d66c95abd8895d8aaa55e699512 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-05-cash-for-clunkers-brings-more-clunkers/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:22:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-05-cash-for-clunkers-brings-more-clunkers/ So how did Cash for Clunkers work out from an environmental standpoint? You don’t want to know.

The $3 billion federal program was kinda sorta supposed to send inefficient, high-polluting, belchy vehicles to an early grave. Instead it put a lot of new large, inefficient vehicles on the road, according to an AP investigation of new government records.

The most common deals swapped old Ford or Chevrolet pickup trucks for new pickups that got “only marginally better gas mileage,” the analysis found. Old Ford F-150 for new Ford F-150 was the most common exchange. Buyers were 17 times more likely to purchase an F-150 (rated at 16 miles per gallon) than a hybrid Toyota Prius.

At least 15 owners of large pickups cashed them in for new Hummer H3 SUVs that get only 16 mpg. Excuse me, but why did the government even send claims forms to Hummer dealerships? Government officials are “investigating” out how these deals squeaked through, the AP reports.

About 1 in 7 of all deals went for vehicles that got 20 mpg or worse. If you think about it, though, 20 mpg really isn’t such a bad rate ... for 1979.

There were plenty of signals before the one-month summer program began that it was a poor method for cutting pollution (note our roundup of early warnings). There’s also a lively debate on whether it made sense as economic stimulus.

“If we’re looking for the environmental story here, we’re going to be disappointed,” Jeremy Anwyl, of analyst firm Edmunds.com, told the AP. “It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy.”

That pretty much nails it.

Related Links:

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama



]]> So how did Cash for Clunkers work out from an environmental standpoint? You don’t want to know.

The $3 billion federal program was kinda sorta supposed to send inefficient, high-polluting, belchy vehicles to an early grave. Instead it put a lot of new large, inefficient vehicles on the road, according to an AP investigation of new government records.

The most common deals swapped old Ford or Chevrolet pickup trucks for new pickups that got “only marginally better gas mileage,” the analysis found. Old Ford F-150 for new Ford F-150 was the most common exchange. Buyers were 17 times more likely to purchase an F-150 (rated at 16 miles per gallon) than a hybrid Toyota Prius.

At least 15 owners of large pickups cashed them in for new Hummer H3 SUVs that get only 16 mpg. Excuse me, but why did the government even send claims forms to Hummer dealerships? Government officials are “investigating” out how these deals squeaked through, the AP reports.

About 1 in 7 of all deals went for vehicles that got 20 mpg or worse. If you think about it, though, 20 mpg really isn’t such a bad rate ... for 1979.

There were plenty of signals before the one-month summer program began that it was a poor method for cutting pollution (note our roundup of early warnings). There’s also a lively debate on whether it made sense as economic stimulus.

“If we’re looking for the environmental story here, we’re going to be disappointed,” Jeremy Anwyl, of analyst firm Edmunds.com, told the AP. “It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy.”

That pretty much nails it.

Related Links:

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama



]]> <![CDATA[Seventh Generation launches anti-toxics campaign with wee gimmick]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=06b98b083b7e027a00853fa2b863568d http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-05-seventh-generation-launches-anti-toxics-campaign-wee-gimmick/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:10:26 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-05-seventh-generation-launches-anti-toxics-campaign-wee-gimmick/ Seventh GenerationAt first blush, one’s enthusiasm for the Million Baby Crawl would seem to depend largely upon three things: 1) enthusiasm for babies, real and animated; 2) a penchant for baby-related puns (we’re going to rattle Congress!); and 3) interest in frittering away time on the interwebs.

But that does a disservice to the intention behind this effort, which is to rally support for reform of the nation’s chemical policies. You don’t have to have babies—or even wuv them!—to want the feds to better regulate the toxics that find their way into our homes and bodies.

The facts are out there, and they are not cuddly-wuddly:

Since 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has requiredsafety testing on only 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals on themarket.According to the Environmental Working Group, a new chemical is synthesized every 2.6 seconds and the EPA approvestwo a day without adequate evaluation, particularly of the risks oflow-dose, long-term exposure.Studies conducted by EWG have detected up to 287 industrial chemicals in umbilical cord blood that nourishes unborn children.

Scary stuff, and you can read much more about it, as well as the push for reform, on the Environmental Working Group site.

Erin Brockovich lends her star power to the launch of the Million Baby Crawl.So the Crawl has commenced. A creative spin on the traditional online petition, it finds legendary green-products manufacturer Seventh Generation partnering with consumer-rights advocate Erin Brockovich, eco-pediatrician Alan Greene, and a coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Visitors can “create a crawler” (again, you don’t have to have a baby, or ever have had a baby, or ever have thought about having a baby, to participate) or “find a crawler” by zip code or name. The goal, say organizers, is to deliver (ha! deliver!) the signatures to Congress in January—so far they’re at 12,160 and counting.

 

Related Links:

Why the climate movement needs more Ethiopian-style activists

The power of the people

Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more



]]> Seventh GenerationAt first blush, one’s enthusiasm for the Million Baby Crawl would seem to depend largely upon three things: 1) enthusiasm for babies, real and animated; 2) a penchant for baby-related puns (we’re going to rattle Congress!); and 3) interest in frittering away time on the interwebs.

But that does a disservice to the intention behind this effort, which is to rally support for reform of the nation’s chemical policies. You don’t have to have babies—or even wuv them!—to want the feds to better regulate the toxics that find their way into our homes and bodies.

The facts are out there, and they are not cuddly-wuddly:

Since 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has requiredsafety testing on only 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals on themarket.According to the Environmental Working Group, a new chemical is synthesized every 2.6 seconds and the EPA approvestwo a day without adequate evaluation, particularly of the risks oflow-dose, long-term exposure.Studies conducted by EWG have detected up to 287 industrial chemicals in umbilical cord blood that nourishes unborn children.

Scary stuff, and you can read much more about it, as well as the push for reform, on the Environmental Working Group site.

Erin Brockovich lends her star power to the launch of the Million Baby Crawl.So the Crawl has commenced. A creative spin on the traditional online petition, it finds legendary green-products manufacturer Seventh Generation partnering with consumer-rights advocate Erin Brockovich, eco-pediatrician Alan Greene, and a coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Visitors can “create a crawler” (again, you don’t have to have a baby, or ever have had a baby, or ever have thought about having a baby, to participate) or “find a crawler” by zip code or name. The goal, say organizers, is to deliver (ha! deliver!) the signatures to Congress in January—so far they’re at 12,160 and counting.

 

Related Links:

Why the climate movement needs more Ethiopian-style activists

The power of the people

Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more



]]> <![CDATA[Paul Krugman Versus Matt Taibbi]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=08720563315e8132da36927604515dd5 http://www.grist.org/article/paul-krugman-versus-matt-taibbi/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:38:47 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/paul-krugman-versus-matt-taibbi/ I love reading Matt Taibbi. I mean, who else puts together a sentence like this?:

The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Funny and righteous at the same time. Good stuff. But in a piece he wrote for Rolling Stone this past July, he made some awfully curious—and curiously unsupported—allegations about carbon markets:

...if the Democratic Party that [Goldman-Sachs] gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Yikes. It’s pretty scary stuff, but Taibbi doesn’t elaborate. At all. 

Which is frustrating.

It’s frustrating because this is precisely the kind of thing you hear all the time from cap and trade critics. Taibbi’s telling a big hairy ghost story here, but because he doesn’t explain it we can’t know whether to be spooked or just laugh it off. At minimum, somebody needs to explain how it is that a carbon-credit market will replicate the commodities market in ways that make it eligible for gaming by Goldman or others. And then someone needs to explain why that risk—if it’s even true—is worse than the risk of failing to cap carbon.

That’s where Paul Krugman comes in.

In his NYT blog, also this past July, Krugman penned what I thought was a terrific rhetorical response to this kind of thinking:

...there’s also, it seems, growing opposition to cap-and-trade from people who should be on the side of progress — but whose reaction is basically “Eek! Markets! Wall Street! Speculation! Bad!”

He explains:

Any time you have a market, there’s some opportunity for speculation… For example, the fact that wheat is traded means that there’s also a wheat futures market; and because wheat can be stored, futures prices affect spot prices.

So, should fear of speculation lead us to ban trading in wheat? Nobody would say that. Yes, sometimes speculators will get it wrong — but the advantages of having a wheat market vastly overshadow the possible harm that may sometimes come from speculation.

Now substitute “emission permits” for wheat. It’s exactly the same story.

Krugman goes on to address a couple of related concerns. A carbon market will not be like the Enron-manipulated energy markets for a couple of important reasons. And carbon speculation wouldn’t replicate the 2008 commodities price surge because, according to Krugman, that price surge wasn’t actually driven by speculation.  But even if you think the prices were speculation-driven, Krugman points out that pretty much no one wants to shutter commodities markets.

Instead, the proper solution to market manipulation is market regulation, not banning markets. Toward that end, it should be comforting to see robust legislative programs for regulating carbon markets, such as the Feinstein-Snowe Carbon Market Oversight Act of 2009, which Lisa has already written about, not to mention the stringent regulatory provisions included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, the primary cap-and-trade vehicle in the US Senate.

Not that there isn’t more to do, perhaps. Carbon market oversight will be critical to the success of a cap-and-trade program. So rather than engaging in speculative market-bashing, I’m hoping that progressives will get to work on designing smart market regulations.

 

This post was originally published on Sightline’s Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

Gaming cap and trade: Should we worry?

Have Cap-and-Trade Programs Been

Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill: Preliminary Thoughts



]]> I love reading Matt Taibbi. I mean, who else puts together a sentence like this?:

The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Funny and righteous at the same time. Good stuff. But in a piece he wrote for Rolling Stone this past July, he made some awfully curious—and curiously unsupported—allegations about carbon markets:

...if the Democratic Party that [Goldman-Sachs] gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Yikes. It’s pretty scary stuff, but Taibbi doesn’t elaborate. At all. 

Which is frustrating.

It’s frustrating because this is precisely the kind of thing you hear all the time from cap and trade critics. Taibbi’s telling a big hairy ghost story here, but because he doesn’t explain it we can’t know whether to be spooked or just laugh it off. At minimum, somebody needs to explain how it is that a carbon-credit market will replicate the commodities market in ways that make it eligible for gaming by Goldman or others. And then someone needs to explain why that risk—if it’s even true—is worse than the risk of failing to cap carbon.

That’s where Paul Krugman comes in.

In his NYT blog, also this past July, Krugman penned what I thought was a terrific rhetorical response to this kind of thinking:

...there’s also, it seems, growing opposition to cap-and-trade from people who should be on the side of progress — but whose reaction is basically “Eek! Markets! Wall Street! Speculation! Bad!”

He explains:

Any time you have a market, there’s some opportunity for speculation… For example, the fact that wheat is traded means that there’s also a wheat futures market; and because wheat can be stored, futures prices affect spot prices.

So, should fear of speculation lead us to ban trading in wheat? Nobody would say that. Yes, sometimes speculators will get it wrong — but the advantages of having a wheat market vastly overshadow the possible harm that may sometimes come from speculation.

Now substitute “emission permits” for wheat. It’s exactly the same story.

Krugman goes on to address a couple of related concerns. A carbon market will not be like the Enron-manipulated energy markets for a couple of important reasons. And carbon speculation wouldn’t replicate the 2008 commodities price surge because, according to Krugman, that price surge wasn’t actually driven by speculation.  But even if you think the prices were speculation-driven, Krugman points out that pretty much no one wants to shutter commodities markets.

Instead, the proper solution to market manipulation is market regulation, not banning markets. Toward that end, it should be comforting to see robust legislative programs for regulating carbon markets, such as the Feinstein-Snowe Carbon Market Oversight Act of 2009, which Lisa has already written about, not to mention the stringent regulatory provisions included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, the primary cap-and-trade vehicle in the US Senate.

Not that there isn’t more to do, perhaps. Carbon market oversight will be critical to the success of a cap-and-trade program. So rather than engaging in speculative market-bashing, I’m hoping that progressives will get to work on designing smart market regulations.

 

This post was originally published on Sightline’s Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

Gaming cap and trade: Should we worry?

Have Cap-and-Trade Programs Been

Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill: Preliminary Thoughts



]]> <![CDATA[Gucci Group commits to saving Indonesia’s rainforests]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=4b8231f711c36d33578d8d05c195f37f http://www.grist.org/article/gucci-group-commits-to-saving-indonesias-rainforest/ Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:44:56 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/gucci-group-commits-to-saving-indonesias-rainforest/ Photo: Shi! There’s a new fashion trend this fall: saving Indonesian rainforests. The Gucci Group, the prestigious conglomerate of fashion and luxury brands that owns Yves Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, and Balenciaga, has decided to eliminate all paper made from Indonesian rainforests. That includes everything from its letterhead to the pretty paper bags with ribbon handles that they give to shoppers to hold their new couture.

A paper policy, you say? That’s not really fashionable, is it?

Turns out it is. Gucci Group’s policy puts it at the front of a list of major companies—including Tiffany & Co., H&M Group, Hugo Boss, Bulgari, and Ferragamo—that have decided  they don’t want their brands to be associated with the destruction of rainforests or with encouraging climate change.

Worldwide, the degradation and destruction of tropical rainforests is responsible for 20 percent of all annual greenhouse emissions. In Indonesia, which supplies much of America’s paper, a lot of this deforestation is driven by the pulp and paper industry—notably the notorious paper company Asia Pulp and Paper.

This hurts the climate as well as the forests. The carbon emissions resulting from Indonesia’s rapid deforestation account for around 8 percent of global emissions—more than the combined emissions from all cars, trucks, buses, planes, and trains in United States.

The Gucci Group’s comprehensive policy commits it to one of the strongest paper standards in the industry. With its new policy, the Gucci Group has pledged to reduce the amount of paper it uses, eliminate fiber from high-conservation-value forests, and only purchase recycled products or those certified by the Forest Stewardship Council by December 2010.

“Standing rainforests are not a luxury, they’re a necessity if the world wants to stop climate change,” said Mimma Viglezio, executive VP for global communications at the Group. “Our actions are lowering our own carbon footprint, but we hope that they will also raise awareness inside the fashion industry that it’s possible for our industry to make a difference for rainforests and for the climate.”

Related Links:

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Is the U.S. Chamber changing its tune on climate, or just its tone?

Climate change and God



]]> Photo: Shi! There’s a new fashion trend this fall: saving Indonesian rainforests. The Gucci Group, the prestigious conglomerate of fashion and luxury brands that owns Yves Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, and Balenciaga, has decided to eliminate all paper made from Indonesian rainforests. That includes everything from its letterhead to the pretty paper bags with ribbon handles that they give to shoppers to hold their new couture.

A paper policy, you say? That’s not really fashionable, is it?

Turns out it is. Gucci Group’s policy puts it at the front of a list of major companies—including Tiffany & Co., H&M Group, Hugo Boss, Bulgari, and Ferragamo—that have decided  they don’t want their brands to be associated with the destruction of rainforests or with encouraging climate change.

Worldwide, the degradation and destruction of tropical rainforests is responsible for 20 percent of all annual greenhouse emissions. In Indonesia, which supplies much of America’s paper, a lot of this deforestation is driven by the pulp and paper industry—notably the notorious paper company Asia Pulp and Paper.

This hurts the climate as well as the forests. The carbon emissions resulting from Indonesia’s rapid deforestation account for around 8 percent of global emissions—more than the combined emissions from all cars, trucks, buses, planes, and trains in United States.

The Gucci Group’s comprehensive policy commits it to one of the strongest paper standards in the industry. With its new policy, the Gucci Group has pledged to reduce the amount of paper it uses, eliminate fiber from high-conservation-value forests, and only purchase recycled products or those certified by the Forest Stewardship Council by December 2010.

“Standing rainforests are not a luxury, they’re a necessity if the world wants to stop climate change,” said Mimma Viglezio, executive VP for global communications at the Group. “Our actions are lowering our own carbon footprint, but we hope that they will also raise awareness inside the fashion industry that it’s possible for our industry to make a difference for rainforests and for the climate.”

Related Links:

Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama

Is the U.S. Chamber changing its tune on climate, or just its tone?

Climate change and God



]]> <![CDATA[If you can’t beat ‘em, cheat ‘em]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=e16980b2ffd3f22deeaf8816b4af6b02 http://www.grist.org/article/if-you-cant-beat-em-cheat-em/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:50:46 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/if-you-cant-beat-em-cheat-em/ Photo: Kat… via FlickrConsider the weasel: so unassuming, even sweet—on the outside. But put them near their prey and watch out! I’ve got weasels on my mind, of course, thanks to Ohio Issue 2, which goes before voters tomorrow. Issue 2 is the Ohio livestock industry’s attempt to head off restrictions on their worst practices, such as tail docking, battery cages and gestation crates, and, purely coincidentally I’m sure, to keep the Humane Society of the United States from doing in Ohio what they’ve done in California, Michigan, Florida and Colorado just to name a few—either through the ballot box or negotiated executive order, change the way factory farms raise their animals. Fiendishly clever in its construction, Issue 2 would create a new commission called the Livestock Care Standards Board to regulate livestock farming techniques. It sounds so reformist! There would even be consumer and human society representation. How unassuming, even sweet—on the outside.

Indeed, once you take a good look at Issue 2, you see how truly weaselly it is. Eleven members of the 13 member board would be appointed by the governor (who also appoints the chairman). While spaces would be reserved for those consumer and humane society representatives, as well as for family farmers (who may also be large-scale factory farmers), the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation itself would not have underwritten at least $500,000 of the estimated $5 million Issue 2 campaign [PDF] if there were not a clear understanding of whose interests would ultimately prevail.

But far worse for Ohioans than the board’s makeup will be its influence. Issue 2 would write the LCSB into the Ohio State Constitution, rather into than the legal code—no half measures for Big Ag! Why would this be a problem? The group Ohio Against a Constitutional Takeover explains (via PDF):

The Livestock Care Standards Board, once cemented into the state constitution, would have the power to override any act by the Ohio Department of Agriculture or the state legislature, or any other initiative or referendum brought before the Ohio public other than an additional constitutional amendment. In effect, this means that any standard created by the Board is a final decision, giving it unchecked power over animal agriculture.

Nothing like the exercise of little raw power to put a spring in an industry’s step. To be clear, this board would have sole and supreme authority—it would take “self-regulation” to a ridiculous extreme. Again, short of amending the state’s constitution (which is more difficult than simply passing a referendum), voters, along with the state ag department and the state legislature, would lose any ability to control the livestock industry. They could, quite simply, do as they please.

The sad fact is that, in a low-turnout off-year election like tomorrow’s, the odds of passing this ludicrous amendment are surprisingly good. Yes, newspapers across the state both large and small are opposed. Groups from Farm Aid, to the Ohio Farmers Union to Food and Water Watch, and the Center for Food Safety have stated their opposition as well. But that durn LCSB sounds so professional and reform-minded! Why not just trust it?

Make no mistake, this is not just Ohio’s problem. Should this bit of governmental legerdemain succeed, a similar commission will likely be coming to a state near you. Big Ag isn’t even pretending it’s a one-off. Having been embarrassed at the polls in state after state when it’s gone up against the Humane Society, Big Ag is trying not so much to take but to steal Ohioans’ ball and go home. Let’s hope they fail.

 

Related Links:

I drink raw milk (sold illegally on the underground market)

Big meat tries to spin new antibiotics report [UPDATED]

CAFOs: ‘Above the Law’ like Steven Seagal?



]]> Photo: Kat… via FlickrConsider the weasel: so unassuming, even sweet—on the outside. But put them near their prey and watch out! I’ve got weasels on my mind, of course, thanks to Ohio Issue 2, which goes before voters tomorrow. Issue 2 is the Ohio livestock industry’s attempt to head off restrictions on their worst practices, such as tail docking, battery cages and gestation crates, and, purely coincidentally I’m sure, to keep the Humane Society of the United States from doing in Ohio what they’ve done in California, Michigan, Florida and Colorado just to name a few—either through the ballot box or negotiated executive order, change the way factory farms raise their animals. Fiendishly clever in its construction, Issue 2 would create a new commission called the Livestock Care Standards Board to regulate livestock farming techniques. It sounds so reformist! There would even be consumer and human society representation. How unassuming, even sweet—on the outside.

Indeed, once you take a good look at Issue 2, you see how truly weaselly it is. Eleven members of the 13 member board would be appointed by the governor (who also appoints the chairman). While spaces would be reserved for those consumer and humane society representatives, as well as for family farmers (who may also be large-scale factory farmers), the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation itself would not have underwritten at least $500,000 of the estimated $5 million Issue 2 campaign [PDF] if there were not a clear understanding of whose interests would ultimately prevail.

But far worse for Ohioans than the board’s makeup will be its influence. Issue 2 would write the LCSB into the Ohio State Constitution, rather into than the legal code—no half measures for Big Ag! Why would this be a problem? The group Ohio Against a Constitutional Takeover explains (via PDF):

The Livestock Care Standards Board, once cemented into the state constitution, would have the power to override any act by the Ohio Department of Agriculture or the state legislature, or any other initiative or referendum brought before the Ohio public other than an additional constitutional amendment. In effect, this means that any standard created by the Board is a final decision, giving it unchecked power over animal agriculture.

Nothing like the exercise of little raw power to put a spring in an industry’s step. To be clear, this board would have sole and supreme authority—it would take “self-regulation” to a ridiculous extreme. Again, short of amending the state’s constitution (which is more difficult than simply passing a referendum), voters, along with the state ag department and the state legislature, would lose any ability to control the livestock industry. They could, quite simply, do as they please.

The sad fact is that, in a low-turnout off-year election like tomorrow’s, the odds of passing this ludicrous amendment are surprisingly good. Yes, newspapers across the state both large and small are opposed. Groups from Farm Aid, to the Ohio Farmers Union to Food and Water Watch, and the Center for Food Safety have stated their opposition as well. But that durn LCSB sounds so professional and reform-minded! Why not just trust it?

Make no mistake, this is not just Ohio’s problem. Should this bit of governmental legerdemain succeed, a similar commission will likely be coming to a state near you. Big Ag isn’t even pretending it’s a one-off. Having been embarrassed at the polls in state after state when it’s gone up against the Humane Society, Big Ag is trying not so much to take but to steal Ohioans’ ball and go home. Let’s hope they fail.

 

Related Links:

I drink raw milk (sold illegally on the underground market)

Big meat tries to spin new antibiotics report [UPDATED]

CAFOs: ‘Above the Law’ like Steven Seagal?



]]> <![CDATA[Why Does Oklahoma Want To Drown New York?]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=2a1a5290cf3fceba187cf109cc43ef89 http://www.grist.org/article/why-does-oklahoma-want-to-drown-new-york/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:41:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/why-does-oklahoma-want-to-drown-new-york/ As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.It’s a good thing that Congress is finally looking at the economics of climate change and carbon reductions, because the overwhelming amount of data - - buttressed by common sense - - shows that reducing carbon will be very good for our economy overall. One of the biggest sources of carbon reductions will be in the area of energy efficiency and that doesn’t cost money, it saves money. Walmart, for example, said that if each of their 100 million customers bought just one compact florescent light bulb to replace an incandescent bulb, those consumers would save over $3 billion in electricity costs over the life of the bulbs (after deducting the higher up-front cost of the new bulbs). Renewable energy, another carbon-reducing technology, creates jobs in the US and saves money too. Alan Horn, President and CEO of Warner Brothers, told me recently that his studio is covering large soundstages with enough solar to provide up to 10% of their massive energy needs. After a 7 to 10 year payback, they will get that amount of their electricity free for decades to come. Moreover, that multi-million dollar project put people to work in Burbank, California, not China or India, and didn’t take away a single job from anyone.It’s misleading when some Senators focus on trivial or entirely bogus costs, but especially troubling when their carbon smokescreen obscures a bigger truth - - inaction will cost far more than tackling the problem. No better example of the mammoth costs associated with denial can be found along our coastlines.As discussed at a the recent H209 Water Forum in New York, cities around the world are building barriers to protect against rising sea level and increased storm activity that is related to the impacts of climate change and it costs real money - -  Venice: $7 billion; London: $8 billion; New Orleans: $700 million; the California coast: $14 billion, plus $1.4 billion a year for maintenance.In New York itself, $400 million was just spent to upgrade pumps that remove rising waters out of subways. Experts at the conference predicted billions more will be needed to protect telecommunications, power lines, and other NY infrastructure that sits below sea level. Even at the lowest end of the range of catastrophic climate impacts predicted, NY will suffer massive street flooding and property damage unless more protections are built. Further inaction on reducing carbon will only drive these costs higher.“I’m sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won’t find much consolation in green welfare programs,” said Senator Inhofe at the hearing. Ironically, building this entire additional infrastructure to deal with rising waters will use a lot of cement, so Inhofe was aimed in the wrong direction again. In fact, companies like W.L. Gore make devices to scrub carbon and other pollution from cement kiln smokestacks and create lots of American jobs in the process (and valuable exports too!). Given all of the obvious economic benefit of evolving to energy that is considerably more efficient/clean/domestic, one can only be left to wonder if Inhofe’s positions mean that Oklahoma just doesn’t like New York? Or California? Or Venice? Maybe the Senator is just jealous that his state doesn’t have a coastline, but unless he and his colleagues start making decisions based on real economic data, his state may also be left without a share of the 21st century industries that will power the globe and lead us out of the current recession.

Related Links:

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Blowing up our clean energy future

Salazar cowboys-up to fight global warming



]]> As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.It’s a good thing that Congress is finally looking at the economics of climate change and carbon reductions, because the overwhelming amount of data - - buttressed by common sense - - shows that reducing carbon will be very good for our economy overall. One of the biggest sources of carbon reductions will be in the area of energy efficiency and that doesn’t cost money, it saves money. Walmart, for example, said that if each of their 100 million customers bought just one compact florescent light bulb to replace an incandescent bulb, those consumers would save over $3 billion in electricity costs over the life of the bulbs (after deducting the higher up-front cost of the new bulbs). Renewable energy, another carbon-reducing technology, creates jobs in the US and saves money too. Alan Horn, President and CEO of Warner Brothers, told me recently that his studio is covering large soundstages with enough solar to provide up to 10% of their massive energy needs. After a 7 to 10 year payback, they will get that amount of their electricity free for decades to come. Moreover, that multi-million dollar project put people to work in Burbank, California, not China or India, and didn’t take away a single job from anyone.It’s misleading when some Senators focus on trivial or entirely bogus costs, but especially troubling when their carbon smokescreen obscures a bigger truth - - inaction will cost far more than tackling the problem. No better example of the mammoth costs associated with denial can be found along our coastlines.As discussed at a the recent H209 Water Forum in New York, cities around the world are building barriers to protect against rising sea level and increased storm activity that is related to the impacts of climate change and it costs real money - -  Venice: $7 billion; London: $8 billion; New Orleans: $700 million; the California coast: $14 billion, plus $1.4 billion a year for maintenance.In New York itself, $400 million was just spent to upgrade pumps that remove rising waters out of subways. Experts at the conference predicted billions more will be needed to protect telecommunications, power lines, and other NY infrastructure that sits below sea level. Even at the lowest end of the range of catastrophic climate impacts predicted, NY will suffer massive street flooding and property damage unless more protections are built. Further inaction on reducing carbon will only drive these costs higher.“I’m sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won’t find much consolation in green welfare programs,” said Senator Inhofe at the hearing. Ironically, building this entire additional infrastructure to deal with rising waters will use a lot of cement, so Inhofe was aimed in the wrong direction again. In fact, companies like W.L. Gore make devices to scrub carbon and other pollution from cement kiln smokestacks and create lots of American jobs in the process (and valuable exports too!). Given all of the obvious economic benefit of evolving to energy that is considerably more efficient/clean/domestic, one can only be left to wonder if Inhofe’s positions mean that Oklahoma just doesn’t like New York? Or California? Or Venice? Maybe the Senator is just jealous that his state doesn’t have a coastline, but unless he and his colleagues start making decisions based on real economic data, his state may also be left without a share of the 21st century industries that will power the globe and lead us out of the current recession.

Related Links:

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Blowing up our clean energy future

Salazar cowboys-up to fight global warming



]]> <![CDATA[Cleantech Open winners get it done quick and cheap]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=cdf307e69b1777c71baa79f7265ce9a8 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-28-cleantech-open-winners/ Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:15:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-28-cleantech-open-winners/ The annual California Cleantech Open startup competition isalways a fun event to attend, because you just might be present for the debut of the Google of green energy or the General Motors of electriccars.

Beyond that, the competition serves as a leading indicatorof emerging green tech trends. And given that the Silicon Valley establishmentjudges the event, it’s an opportunity to gauge which way they see the windblowing.

This year the Open dropped California from its name as it expanded the competition to the PacificNorthwest and the Rocky Mountain region. But at heart, it’s still a Valley gameand I went down to Palo Alto last week for the unveiling of the Californiafinalists. I was curious to see how the Great Recession, the stimuluspackage, and evolving green tech market impacted the class of 2009.

The event was held at the law firm of Wilson SonsiniGoodrich Rosati, a Valley institution and advisor to many a tech startup turnedglobal giant. (Wilson Sonsini’s offices are conveniently located on the otherside of Stanford University from Sand Hill Road, the capital of venturecapital.)

The finalists in six categories—air, water and waste,energy efficiency, green building, renewables, smart power, transportation —offered up a mix of brainiac tech andway-low tech. But nearly all espoused what might be called abstemiousentrepreneurialism for hard times—getting products to market quickly andcheaply.

“Rather than come upwith projects that require $20 million before they’re useful to anyone, they’resaying, ‘Let’s see if there’s anything our technology will do for $100,000, aquarter of a million or a million dollars and get this thing to real customers,’” said Rex Northen, executive director of the Cleantech Open.

Take Micromidas, astartup founded by three twenty-something engineers and a microbiologist out ofthe University of California, Davis. The finalist in the air, waste and watercategory, Micromidas uses microbes to convert raw sewage into bioplastics. Inaccepting the award, chief executive John Bissell stressed that the fledglingcompany needs only $1 million to get a demonstration plant up and running.

“We have raised one-third of that already,” said thebaby-faced CEO. “We can get a pilot up and running within 12 months.”

The founders of green building winner tru2earth told venturecapitalists in the audience that $100,000 would let them create a prototype oftheir recycled plastic roof shingle.

“We’re pretty low tech,” said Brian Pierson, chief executiveof tru2earth.

The startup plans to make its plastic roofing shingles from polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, thethrowaway material that bottled water and soft drinks comes in. The idea is toreplace environmentally unfriendly asphalt shingles with PET, which isrecyclable but largely ends up in landfills or littering beaches and waterways.

In a karmic paybackfor the absurdity of the bottled-water phenomenon, discarded bottles will bereborn as plastic shingles designed to harvest rainwater to irrigate backyardgardens.

Pierson said tru2earth expects to begin shipping its firstproduct—a Mission-style shingle found in countless coastal California subdivisions—to market by mid-2010. That’s fast. But it will take much longer to persuadethe notoriously conservative building industry to get off its asphalt habit andtry a new roofing material.

No surprise then that tru2earth plans to sell its first productsto green architects and environmentally friendly builders.

The winner of the renewables category was a solar startupwith the not-so-sunny name of ArmageddonEnergy. (Punkish names seemed to be in vogue this year—the runner-up totru2earth was a biochar company called GreenPyro.)

Armageddon plans to make a 1-kilowatt residential rooftopsolar array in a box that can be installed by homeowners (or at least thosewith no fear of heights.)

The thin, six-sided SolarClover arrays will be sold “in aflat-pack box like you’d get at Ikea or Costco,” said Armageddon founder MarkGoldman.

According to Goldman, the array is light enough to be luggedto the roof by an enterprising homeowner. Otherwise a general contractor can dothe work but you’ll still need an electrician to wire the array to your home’selectrical system.

Alphabet Energy took the energy efficiency prize. The startup, which emerged from the LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory, is making thermoelectric materials that cangenerate electricity from waste heat.

It’s not as sexy as solar but has huge potential to producepower while lowering industrial carbon emissions. “The steel and cementindustries generate tremendous amounts of heat that could be used to produceelectricity,” said Alphabet chief executive Matthew Scullin.

Alphabet intends to disrupt the market not by makingsuper-efficient thermoelectric materials but super-cheap devices that willlower the cost of generating electricity from waste heat.

Scullin said the startup needs $2 million to $3 million tocommercialize the technology.

The winner of the smart power category was EcoFactor, which is developing residentialenergy management systems based on a two-way thermostat that helps homeowners andutilities cut electricity consumption and costs. As smart grid stimulus moneyflows, home energy management has become a crowded field, with everyone fromstartups to Google jumping into the game.

EcoFactor chief executive John Steinberg was sketchy on the details of the system butclaimed that it could reduce customers’ electricity bills by as much 30 percent.

Lastly, the transportation finalist ribbon went to FuelSavers Technologies, whichis developing streamlining technology for big-rig trucks. Again, founder DoronNeuberger was vague on the details but he indicated that the startup hasdeveloped devices that attach to the rear and belly of semi trucks as well as to the gapbetween tractor and trailer. The devices change shape according to the windconditions in order to minimize air resistance and thus fuel consumption.

The finalists each won $100,000 in cash and services. They will competeagainst each other and the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain finalists for a$250,000 grand prize to be announced at a Nov. 17 ceremony in San Francisco.

Related Links:

Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline?

Washington governor isn’t falling for big geoengineering fixes

National Institutes of Energy needed to fill energy research and development gap



]]> The annual California Cleantech Open startup competition isalways a fun event to attend, because you just might be present for the debut of the Google of green energy or the General Motors of electriccars.

Beyond that, the competition serves as a leading indicatorof emerging green tech trends. And given that the Silicon Valley establishmentjudges the event, it’s an opportunity to gauge which way they see the windblowing.

This year the Open dropped California from its name as it expanded the competition to the PacificNorthwest and the Rocky Mountain region. But at heart, it’s still a Valley gameand I went down to Palo Alto last week for the unveiling of the Californiafinalists. I was curious to see how the Great Recession, the stimuluspackage, and evolving green tech market impacted the class of 2009.

The event was held at the law firm of Wilson SonsiniGoodrich Rosati, a Valley institution and advisor to many a tech startup turnedglobal giant. (Wilson Sonsini’s offices are conveniently located on the otherside of Stanford University from Sand Hill Road, the capital of venturecapital.)

The finalists in six categories—air, water and waste,energy efficiency, green building, renewables, smart power, transportation —offered up a mix of brainiac tech andway-low tech. But nearly all espoused what might be called abstemiousentrepreneurialism for hard times—getting products to market quickly andcheaply.

“Rather than come upwith projects that require $20 million before they’re useful to anyone, they’resaying, ‘Let’s see if there’s anything our technology will do for $100,000, aquarter of a million or a million dollars and get this thing to real customers,’” said Rex Northen, executive director of the Cleantech Open.

Take Micromidas, astartup founded by three twenty-something engineers and a microbiologist out ofthe University of California, Davis. The finalist in the air, waste and watercategory, Micromidas uses microbes to convert raw sewage into bioplastics. Inaccepting the award, chief executive John Bissell stressed that the fledglingcompany needs only $1 million to get a demonstration plant up and running.

“We have raised one-third of that already,” said thebaby-faced CEO. “We can get a pilot up and running within 12 months.”

The founders of green building winner tru2earth told venturecapitalists in the audience that $100,000 would let them create a prototype oftheir recycled plastic roof shingle.

“We’re pretty low tech,” said Brian Pierson, chief executiveof tru2earth.

The startup plans to make its plastic roofing shingles from polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, thethrowaway material that bottled water and soft drinks comes in. The idea is toreplace environmentally unfriendly asphalt shingles with PET, which isrecyclable but largely ends up in landfills or littering beaches and waterways.

In a karmic paybackfor the absurdity of the bottled-water phenomenon, discarded bottles will bereborn as plastic shingles designed to harvest rainwater to irrigate backyardgardens.

Pierson said tru2earth expects to begin shipping its firstproduct—a Mission-style shingle found in countless coastal California subdivisions—to market by mid-2010. That’s fast. But it will take much longer to persuadethe notoriously conservative building industry to get off its asphalt habit andtry a new roofing material.

No surprise then that tru2earth plans to sell its first productsto green architects and environmentally friendly builders.

The winner of the renewables category was a solar startupwith the not-so-sunny name of ArmageddonEnergy. (Punkish names seemed to be in vogue this year—the runner-up totru2earth was a biochar company called GreenPyro.)

Armageddon plans to make a 1-kilowatt residential rooftopsolar array in a box that can be installed by homeowners (or at least thosewith no fear of heights.)

The thin, six-sided SolarClover arrays will be sold “in aflat-pack box like you’d get at Ikea or Costco,” said Armageddon founder MarkGoldman.

According to Goldman, the array is light enough to be luggedto the roof by an enterprising homeowner. Otherwise a general contractor can dothe work but you’ll still need an electrician to wire the array to your home’selectrical system.

Alphabet Energy took the energy efficiency prize. The startup, which emerged from the LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory, is making thermoelectric materials that cangenerate electricity from waste heat.

It’s not as sexy as solar but has huge potential to producepower while lowering industrial carbon emissions. “The steel and cementindustries generate tremendous amounts of heat that could be used to produceelectricity,” said Alphabet chief executive Matthew Scullin.

Alphabet intends to disrupt the market not by makingsuper-efficient thermoelectric materials but super-cheap devices that willlower the cost of generating electricity from waste heat.

Scullin said the startup needs $2 million to $3 million tocommercialize the technology.

The winner of the smart power category was EcoFactor, which is developing residentialenergy management systems based on a two-way thermostat that helps homeowners andutilities cut electricity consumption and costs. As smart grid stimulus moneyflows, home energy management has become a crowded field, with everyone fromstartups to Google jumping into the game.

EcoFactor chief executive John Steinberg was sketchy on the details of the system butclaimed that it could reduce customers’ electricity bills by as much 30 percent.

Lastly, the transportation finalist ribbon went to FuelSavers Technologies, whichis developing streamlining technology for big-rig trucks. Again, founder DoronNeuberger was vague on the details but he indicated that the startup hasdeveloped devices that attach to the rear and belly of semi trucks as well as to the gapbetween tractor and trailer. The devices change shape according to the windconditions in order to minimize air resistance and thus fuel consumption.

The finalists each won $100,000 in cash and services. They will competeagainst each other and the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountain finalists for a$250,000 grand prize to be announced at a Nov. 17 ceremony in San Francisco.

Related Links:

Is John Broder embarrassed to have a baseless hit job on Gore under his byline?

Washington governor isn’t falling for big geoengineering fixes

National Institutes of Energy needed to fill energy research and development gap



]]> <![CDATA[Paterson’s Bold Carbon Gamble]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=fe569fb0d230ca74e84ba7f3095719b8 http://www.grist.org/article/patersons-bold-carbon-gamble/ Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:06:00 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/patersons-bold-carbon-gamble/ California’s state budget gap was about $40 billion this year. New York’s some $50 billion. Every state in the Union is struggling with drastically lower revenues and higher costs for services of every kind, washing state capitals with red ink. At the polls next year, governors who are facing elections - - including Governor David Paterson of New York - - may find themselves politically drowned by such gargantuan deficits.So, faced with closing schools, hospitals, fire stations, and kicking struggling families off of welfare roles, governors are turning instead, like the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, to wherever the money may be. In New York’s case, at least some of it is hidden in a carbon piggy bank.Late last year, ten northeastern states started a cap-and-trade system covering carbon emissions from powerplants. Each facility must buy its initial “allowances” for whatever they emit from the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Each state decides how to spend this money, but generally they have committed it to energy efficiency programs. That’s where Paterson took a bold gamble. He proposed using $90 million of the state’s $202 million in carbon allowance revenues this year to subsidize the state’s budget deficit. Many criticized the move, fearing that environmental and energy efficiency goals won’t be met and that other states might copy the move, making matters worse. That may also cost the Governor some “green” friends, hurting his chances at the polls next year.But maybe he did New Yorkers - - and the rest of us - - a real favor. First of all, more than half the carbon money still goes to energy investments. For example, Paterson recently announced a buy-back program for inefficient old appliances. That will save lots of energy as people trade up for newer energy-efficient models, stimulating the economy at the same time, just as the “cash for clunkers” program helped car dealers.Of course Paterson could have proposed higher taxes instead of raiding the carbon piggy bank. But is it a good idea to tax workers and businesses more, penalizing hard work, or is it better to essentially tax waste and thereby encourage conservation? Many have suggested this very idea as a way to deal with climate change - - tax carbon polluters, which raises the cost of electricity and gasoline - - but lower taxes on payrolls and businesses. Such a zero-sum “tax shift”, it is argued, would reward hard work and discourage wasteful use of energy, both worthy outcomes. In any case, it would force users of energy to pay the true cost of their supply - - a cost, measured in climate change impacts, that is borne today by everyone regardless of how much energy they use.Climate activists’ immediate reaction to Paterson’s move was negative, but perhaps it’s worth another look. If governors everywhere knew there was carbon piggy bank in their state, we might soon see more support for carbon cap-and-trade systems and quickly earn bi-partisan support for tackling climate change. Given that Congress is stalled on climate legislation, this may be one of our best bets for an American contribution to a global deal in Copenhagen later this year. If that happens, we will have Governor Paterson to thank for being bold enough to get us started.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Gaming cap and trade: Should we worry?



]]> California’s state budget gap was about $40 billion this year. New York’s some $50 billion. Every state in the Union is struggling with drastically lower revenues and higher costs for services of every kind, washing state capitals with red ink. At the polls next year, governors who are facing elections - - including Governor David Paterson of New York - - may find themselves politically drowned by such gargantuan deficits.So, faced with closing schools, hospitals, fire stations, and kicking struggling families off of welfare roles, governors are turning instead, like the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, to wherever the money may be. In New York’s case, at least some of it is hidden in a carbon piggy bank.Late last year, ten northeastern states started a cap-and-trade system covering carbon emissions from powerplants. Each facility must buy its initial “allowances” for whatever they emit from the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Each state decides how to spend this money, but generally they have committed it to energy efficiency programs. That’s where Paterson took a bold gamble. He proposed using $90 million of the state’s $202 million in carbon allowance revenues this year to subsidize the state’s budget deficit. Many criticized the move, fearing that environmental and energy efficiency goals won’t be met and that other states might copy the move, making matters worse. That may also cost the Governor some “green” friends, hurting his chances at the polls next year.But maybe he did New Yorkers - - and the rest of us - - a real favor. First of all, more than half the carbon money still goes to energy investments. For example, Paterson recently announced a buy-back program for inefficient old appliances. That will save lots of energy as people trade up for newer energy-efficient models, stimulating the economy at the same time, just as the “cash for clunkers” program helped car dealers.Of course Paterson could have proposed higher taxes instead of raiding the carbon piggy bank. But is it a good idea to tax workers and businesses more, penalizing hard work, or is it better to essentially tax waste and thereby encourage conservation? Many have suggested this very idea as a way to deal with climate change - - tax carbon polluters, which raises the cost of electricity and gasoline - - but lower taxes on payrolls and businesses. Such a zero-sum “tax shift”, it is argued, would reward hard work and discourage wasteful use of energy, both worthy outcomes. In any case, it would force users of energy to pay the true cost of their supply - - a cost, measured in climate change impacts, that is borne today by everyone regardless of how much energy they use.Climate activists’ immediate reaction to Paterson’s move was negative, but perhaps it’s worth another look. If governors everywhere knew there was carbon piggy bank in their state, we might soon see more support for carbon cap-and-trade systems and quickly earn bi-partisan support for tackling climate change. Given that Congress is stalled on climate legislation, this may be one of our best bets for an American contribution to a global deal in Copenhagen later this year. If that happens, we will have Governor Paterson to thank for being bold enough to get us started.

Related Links:

Feed-in tariffs—the new school of thought

Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Gaming cap and trade: Should we worry?



]]> <![CDATA[How the green economy can help low income women]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=130b2f6b5d59cdf5856ca56b13db1109 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-23-how-the-green-economy-can-help-low-income-women/ Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:12:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-23-how-the-green-economy-can-help-low-income-women/ This past week Maria Shriver and the Center for AmericanProgress released a seminal report on the emergence of women as primary wageearners for millions of families. TheShriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything, marks a promisingstep forward in the evolution of a society that for too long has failed toadjust policies and practices to women’s growing presence in the workplace.

Left in the shadows of this otherwise comprehensive report,however, were the unique obstacles faced by those struggling most to make endsmeet-low-income single mothers trying to support their families on paltry wagesin jobs that offer no prospects for a better future. Any serious nationaldiscussion on the obstacles confronting women in the workforce must include aspecial focus on the growing numbers of women toiling at the bottom of theeconomic ladder.

Consider these facts:

Ninety percent of working-age adults who work full-time but earn less than $15,000 a year are women. In 2008, 37.2 percent of female-headed families with children were living in poverty compared with just 8 percent of families with both parents in the home and 14 percent of male-headed families. Adult women and teenage girls make up two-thirds of minimum wage employees in the U.S.

The recession has taken a significant toll on low-income single mothers. In September, 11.6 percent of this population were unemployed,compared with 11 percent of men overall and 7.4 percent of married men.Providing low-income single women with the resources to train for and stayemployed in jobs with good wages and benefits is the clearest path to abrighter future for millions of families. Since women now make up half theworkforce, it is also a vital component of lasting economic recovery for ournation.

As founding members of a new collaborative of women’sfoundations—the Women’sEconomic Security Campaign—we have seen up close how programs that trainwomen for better paying jobs with the possibility of advancement can make allthe difference for families and communities. With the emergence of a green jobssector, we have an opportunity to advance women’s economic security in a biggerand better way than ever before, providing low-income women with a rare chanceto get in on the ground floor of a growth industry and learn the skills tocompete for stable, higher-paying jobs.

Unfortunately most green jobs, from weatherizing homes andbuildings to constructing wind turbines, are in fields that have typically beendominated by men. As a society we have a terrible track record of training andplacing women in these non-traditional careers. For example, 0.5 percent ofroofers and 1.4 percent of plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters are women,according to a new report from the Women’s Economic Security Campaign—CreatingOpportunity for Low-Income Women in the Green Economy. Even at thehigher end, women make up just 10.6 percent of civil engineers. The medianhourly wage for roofers, at the low-end of the non-traditional job spectrum, is$16.17 an hour—enough to cover the basic needs of a small family. By contrast,preschool teachers, 98 percent of whom are women, earn just $11.48 an hour. Atthat wage, a preschool teacher would need to work over 25 hours more per weekthen a roofer to support a similar living standard.

Fortunately, our country is in a good position to changethis pattern. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided states withmillions of dollars to train workers for new green sector jobs. We need toensure that a significant portion of those funds goes to programs that preparelow-income women to successfully compete in the green economy.

Once they are on the job we need to provide women with thesupports necessary to stay employed. For low-income single mothers that meanschild care, flexible hours, and accessible transportation. It also meansenforcing anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws that for too long havemade non-traditional workplaces inhospitable to women.

As Congress debates climatechange legislation, our representatives in Washington, D.C. should stand up forthe needs of low-income women when considering provisions aimed at training andplacing workers in green jobs. We have the chance to do it right this time andshape a more promising future for the growing number of women and children inpoverty. In the process we can help our nation move toward a long-term economicrecovery that will benefit us all.

Related Links:

Senators opposed to the Clean Energy Jobs Act are ignoring the bill’s benefits to Americans

By the numbers—data highlights on poverty and population

A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green



]]> This past week Maria Shriver and the Center for AmericanProgress released a seminal report on the emergence of women as primary wageearners for millions of families. TheShriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything, marks a promisingstep forward in the evolution of a society that for too long has failed toadjust policies and practices to women’s growing presence in the workplace.

Left in the shadows of this otherwise comprehensive report,however, were the unique obstacles faced by those struggling most to make endsmeet-low-income single mothers trying to support their families on paltry wagesin jobs that offer no prospects for a better future. Any serious nationaldiscussion on the obstacles confronting women in the workforce must include aspecial focus on the growing numbers of women toiling at the bottom of theeconomic ladder.

Consider these facts:

Ninety percent of working-age adults who work full-time but earn less than $15,000 a year are women. In 2008, 37.2 percent of female-headed families with children were living in poverty compared with just 8 percent of families with both parents in the home and 14 percent of male-headed families. Adult women and teenage girls make up two-thirds of minimum wage employees in the U.S.

The recession has taken a significant toll on low-income single mothers. In September, 11.6 percent of this population were unemployed,compared with 11 percent of men overall and 7.4 percent of married men.Providing low-income single women with the resources to train for and stayemployed in jobs with good wages and benefits is the clearest path to abrighter future for millions of families. Since women now make up half theworkforce, it is also a vital component of lasting economic recovery for ournation.

As founding members of a new collaborative of women’sfoundations—the Women’sEconomic Security Campaign—we have seen up close how programs that trainwomen for better paying jobs with the possibility of advancement can make allthe difference for families and communities. With the emergence of a green jobssector, we have an opportunity to advance women’s economic security in a biggerand better way than ever before, providing low-income women with a rare chanceto get in on the ground floor of a growth industry and learn the skills tocompete for stable, higher-paying jobs.

Unfortunately most green jobs, from weatherizing homes andbuildings to constructing wind turbines, are in fields that have typically beendominated by men. As a society we have a terrible track record of training andplacing women in these non-traditional careers. For example, 0.5 percent ofroofers and 1.4 percent of plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters are women,according to a new report from the Women’s Economic Security Campaign—CreatingOpportunity for Low-Income Women in the Green Economy. Even at thehigher end, women make up just 10.6 percent of civil engineers. The medianhourly wage for roofers, at the low-end of the non-traditional job spectrum, is$16.17 an hour—enough to cover the basic needs of a small family. By contrast,preschool teachers, 98 percent of whom are women, earn just $11.48 an hour. Atthat wage, a preschool teacher would need to work over 25 hours more per weekthen a roofer to support a similar living standard.

Fortunately, our country is in a good position to changethis pattern. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided states withmillions of dollars to train workers for new green sector jobs. We need toensure that a significant portion of those funds goes to programs that preparelow-income women to successfully compete in the green economy.

Once they are on the job we need to provide women with thesupports necessary to stay employed. For low-income single mothers that meanschild care, flexible hours, and accessible transportation. It also meansenforcing anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws that for too long havemade non-traditional workplaces inhospitable to women.

As Congress debates climatechange legislation, our representatives in Washington, D.C. should stand up forthe needs of low-income women when considering provisions aimed at training andplacing workers in green jobs. We have the chance to do it right this time andshape a more promising future for the growing number of women and children inpoverty. In the process we can help our nation move toward a long-term economicrecovery that will benefit us all.

Related Links:

Senators opposed to the Clean Energy Jobs Act are ignoring the bill’s benefits to Americans

By the numbers—data highlights on poverty and population

A $4 billion push to make affordable housing green



]]> <![CDATA[Performance anxiety]]> http://feeds.grist.org/click.phdo?i=4234f5186e253ab8030f78f3ada6087e http://www.grist.org/article/performance-anxiety/ Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:31:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/performance-anxiety/ It’s not just the ads showing a baby-boomer couple sitting in matching bathtubs on a beach at sunset where you can find performance anxiety these days. Try looking in the hardware aisle and at the gas station.Rather than ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs, for example, California lawmakers set an efficiency performance standard—which was adopted by the feds—so in 2012, you won’t be able to buy energy-wasting bulbs. That spurred Phillips to develop and market their “Halogena Energy Saver” incandescent bulb that is 30 percent more efficient than conventional versions. The performance standard approach—instead of government picking winners and losers—clearly worked for both environmentally minded policy makers and bottom-line minded businesses.The stealth performance standard that will hit another part of daily life—your car—relates to gasoline and diesel fuel. California adopted a “low carbon fuels standard” that says the carbon content of fuels sold in the state must decline 10 percent by 2020. Fuel sellers can achieve that by slashing emissions from refineries ahead of other carbon regulations; by blending petroleum with lower carbon-content fuels like sustainable biofuels; by selling non-carbon fuels like hydrogen; or anything else that reduces the carbon content of the total portfolio of fuels sold.Senator Barack Obama embraced making this a national standard almost two years ago and many lawmakers of both parties like this technology-neutral, competition-enhancing approach to reducing carbon. Chevron, Toyota, and several others also have endorsed this approach, because it allows them to find the cheapest ways to comply with the policy goal and perhaps to develop solutions they can market to others. Nothing like a good profit motive to accelerate public policy.Of course this spells trouble for companies that are hoping to market fuels made from high carbon-footprint sources like the Canadian tar sands. Given that it takes up to four times as much energy to extract and refine that gunk into anything useful, it’s a sure bet the resulting products won’t find much of a market if fuel sellers are trying to lower the carbon content of their products. An online investor news service has a list of stocks that are exposed, at least in part, to this significant/growing liability—may be a good list to keep handy of stocks to avoid. Based on the successes of the performance standards approach so far, academics and policy makers around the world are looking for more ways to use them, instead of prescriptive bans or mandates. At least in some human endeavors, it seems performance anxiety can be a good thing.

Related Links:

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Dogs Vs. SUVs

Rural Electric Cooperatives: Efficiency measures more important



]]> It’s not just the ads showing a baby-boomer couple sitting in matching bathtubs on a beach at sunset where you can find performance anxiety these days. Try looking in the hardware aisle and at the gas station.Rather than ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs, for example, California lawmakers set an efficiency performance standard—which was adopted by the feds—so in 2012, you won’t be able to buy energy-wasting bulbs. That spurred Phillips to develop and market their “Halogena Energy Saver” incandescent bulb that is 30 percent more efficient than conventional versions. The performance standard approach—instead of government picking winners and losers—clearly worked for both environmentally minded policy makers and bottom-line minded businesses.The stealth performance standard that will hit another part of daily life—your car—relates to gasoline and diesel fuel. California adopted a “low carbon fuels standard” that says the carbon content of fuels sold in the state must decline 10 percent by 2020. Fuel sellers can achieve that by slashing emissions from refineries ahead of other carbon regulations; by blending petroleum with lower carbon-content fuels like sustainable biofuels; by selling non-carbon fuels like hydrogen; or anything else that reduces the carbon content of the total portfolio of fuels sold.Senator Barack Obama embraced making this a national standard almost two years ago and many lawmakers of both parties like this technology-neutral, competition-enhancing approach to reducing carbon. Chevron, Toyota, and several others also have endorsed this approach, because it allows them to find the cheapest ways to comply with the policy goal and perhaps to develop solutions they can market to others. Nothing like a good profit motive to accelerate public policy.Of course this spells trouble for companies that are hoping to market fuels made from high carbon-footprint sources like the Canadian tar sands. Given that it takes up to four times as much energy to extract and refine that gunk into anything useful, it’s a sure bet the resulting products won’t find much of a market if fuel sellers are trying to lower the carbon content of their products. An online investor news service has a list of stocks that are exposed, at least in part, to this significant/growing liability—may be a good list to keep handy of stocks to avoid. Based on the successes of the performance standards approach so far, academics and policy makers around the world are looking for more ways to use them, instead of prescriptive bans or mandates. At least in some human endeavors, it seems performance anxiety can be a good thing.

Related Links:

Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!

Dogs Vs. SUVs

Rural Electric Cooperatives: Efficiency measures more important



]]>