Greenlandic broccoli.

Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace prize 2007. Mr Gore is a case in point when it comes to blessings in disguise. Lose some, win some?

Elsewhere, specifically in Potsdam this week, 15 other Nobel laureates convened to discuss global warming.

Finnish Business & Society 2/2007 interviews Hanken's very own Johanna Mattila (among others) re: business and climate change.

British adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh is campaigning for climate change solutions and against growing CO2 emissions by attempting to be the first person to swim in the North Pole.

On July 15, Mr Pugh plans to swim a 1 km stretch in the -1.8C polar water wearing only goggles, a swimcap and speedos. This has never been done before, because the water used to remain frozen throughout the year.

More on the thrill seeking and obviously warm-blooded Mr Pugh here.

The IPCC 4th assessment part 3 "Mitigation" is out; you can find it here.

The voices of the UN scientists have never been stronger. The Guardian writes that the UN scientists warn time is running out and there are eight years to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The Independent says that instead of panicking, people should act. The New York Times stays out of the prescriptive territory and notes that the climate panel has reached a consenses on the need to reduce harmful emissions.

Hard to Make a Stand?

This weekend's New York Times and other papers reported of an argument between White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and rockstar Sheryl Crow. According to the Times, Ms Crow had approached Mr Rove at a social dinner to discuss global warming. Crow had touched Rove's arm to talk to him about climate change, and Rove had spat back ("Don't touch me"); the argument had escalated from there.

Karl Rove got very mad at Sheryl Crow this weekend, but was Mr Rove perhaps just envious of Ms Crow's stage presence?

Exhibit A: Here's Ms Crow performing Hard to Make a Stand in summer 2006.
We got loud guitars and big suspicions,
Great big guns and small ambitions,
And we still argue over who is God
And I say, "Hey there Miscreation,
Bring a flower, time is wasting"
"Hey there Miscreation,
We all need a celebration"
And it's hard to make a stand

Exhibit B: Mr Rove recently attended the Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner. Mr Rove joined a group of comedians in rapping on stage.

That was truly terrible. But wait... Mr Rove's performance is strangely reminiscent of a few previous hair-raising moments in home video history. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer loved his company a few years ago, and he really out-of-breath loved it.

Ballmer is really, really frightening. But Karl Rove may also have been inspired by the Bank of America guys. We've seen this before, and it's almost too much to bear.

Now, I'm a non-native speaker, so when a White House spokesperson called Ms Crow's meeting with Karl Rove "Hollywood histrionics" I, for one, actually had to check the dictionary for "histrionics." It means "theatrical performance." Ms Crow's moment with Mr Rove was "a theatrical performance"? Compared to Mr Rove's look-I-can-laugh-at-myself rap? No comment. Men -- can anyone imagine a woman doing anything like Rove/Ballmer/BofA? Nope. No way. Never. If a woman does this, she won't be the President's right-hand woman or the CEO of the largest software company in the world. She's probably taken to - that's right, people - rehab.

Exhibit C: Britney Spears... Britney Spears went bald/ballistic/ballmer earlier this spring, and was admitted to a place called Promises.

Okay, so Sheryl Crow herself may be the first to admit it's hard to make a climate-saving stand at a White House Correspondents' Association dinner, but for what it's worth, in this video below, rocking with Mick Jagger, even Sheryl Crow's jeans make a greater political stand than Rove/Ballmer/BofA probably ever could ("we want to be rockstars" -- no, guys, but you have a lot in common in the silliness department!!!)

(This entry owes YouTube a huge debt of gratitude... Thank yous go out to all those YouTube posters out there posting these great clips...)

Earth Day

Google looks like this today. ->

Clicking on the image on www.google.com brings you here.

Pretty powerful, considering how many people will see that...

Signs of Spring

The Guardian also spots signs of spring in the English countryside.




Wanted to lighten people's day with these images. They were taken in the south of Finland, in Espoo, in the end of March -- early for crocuses in Finland? Thought they were very pretty.

The Independent's leading article today: "A global warning from the dustbowl of Australia."

The article states that "Australia is in the midst of a crippling drought, the worst on record", calling for urgent action to curb climate change.

Australia and the United States are the only industrialized nations that have not signed the Kyoto protocol.

TGGWS in Iltalehti

Over Easter, I quietly fumed about how Iltalehti published a reader comment recommending -- what else? -- The Great Global Warming Swindle to Finnish viewers. Wow. Recall that one interviewee in TGGWS later claimed that he was "the one who had been swindled" as he was "misrepresented" as a climate change sceptic. (The good thing about YouTube's current copyright infringement battle? TGGWS has been removed from the web.) The Iltalehti reader commenting on the film actually argued that, "The issue that we ought to be concerned about is environmental protection... I think it is mostly the media's and politicians' fault that climate change has become a more visible issue than taking care of the world's environment and oceans (sic). They are, after all, two totally separate issues."

First of all, I'm not even sure what I was doing reading Iltalehti, and secondly, I'm sorry, but what the heck? Oh my God. It is hard to fathom someone would genuinely write such a piece. The compartmentalization is simply mind blowing. Since when were environmental protection and climate change separate issues? Since when was the environment separate from the oceans? Despite the incoherence, Iltalehti afforded that piece of writing one third of a page, advertised TGGWS and juxtaposed this with a picture of pretty yellow flowers. It was clearly an effort to provoke, since that's what tabloids are about, but it's irresponsible: polemic that instills complacency.

The least critical and the least educated are the most likely to get their "science" from Iltalehti. Climate scepticism and films like TGGWS may claim to be about enhancing scientific literacy and inspiring dialogue, but most of us do not have the education to fully understand the science of climate change, anyway. The scientists themselves do not claim to fully understand it! None of us fully understand the consequences of our actions and nobody can predict the future, but does it stop us from living our lives? No. We do the best with whatever knowledge we've got, (hopefully) not doubting our every move. So why would anyone let the climate change polemic brew such doubt that they do nothing? How cocky to think that just by observing the weather and reading the dailies one could know better than individuals who've devoted their entire careers to the subject! Scientists have very little to gain from telling us the environment is changing and we're causing it. When thousands of scientists tell us they are confident something is for real, why can we not take it on faith -- are people that untrusting with the so-called establishment these days? Can the tabloids not go back to antagonizing Hollywood?

Here's a link to the discussion. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the original comment on the web; they probably only published it in the actual paper. I especially enjoyed that comment where someone tells another writer to "calm down, you're not going to die," and the other one responds, "I most certainly will, you wanna bet?" Me too, I will most certainly die. It's probably not going to be climate change that will kill me, just like the Greenland ice sheet won't melt next year, but that doesn't mean those things won't eventually happen.

Swindle

Readers on a New York Times forum are referring others to the The Great Global Warming Swindle for credible (some argue "unassailable") evidence against human-induced global warming. The Swindle movie is so conveniently available on YouTube that literally hundreds of thousands of people have watched it over the past three weeks.

I posted quotes on the forum from the Guardian and the Independent to discredit Swindle. It was pretty much the same stuff posted here on our blog a few weeks ago. If you'd like to read the forum, my comments are under my first name; someone also responded to me (they got my name wrong and spelled it Kristeen, but just ctrl-F that and my name and there's my slice of the debate if you're interested.)

A forum like that shows the depth of doubt and breadth of opinion out there. I felt it was imperative to comment publicly on this film. People with no scientific background are trying to debate the larger issues by arguing over details that most of us simply cannot understand without extensive science education. The details don't change the big picture: we are putting gas in the atmosphere, hence it warms. Period. Many are using a film like Swindle to infer that human-induced climate change is merely a liberal hoax. All I'm saying is, I'm not an atmospheric scientist (either); sometimes you just have to trust the people who are. These are people who are working for a fraction of what they'd get in industry, telling us this thing is real. Endless debating among lay people without PhDs is what keeps the masses from taking action. Why are we willing to believe marketing and all kinds of hype, but unwilling to believe scientists?

Once the real evidence arrives, it may be too late. This view finds support in Oxford Today, which in its latest issue published an article about green energy:

Likewise, [Good Energy CEO Juliet] Davenport agrees that saving the planet is more about people than science. 'I do believe that humanity is incredibly innovative and incredibly powerful. But for governments to take action there has to be real public awareness of the issue', she says. 'I do believe that we will come up with a way of solving this problem. But to get to that critical tipping-point of public awareness, I fear there may have to be casualties first.'

Ben Franklin said it best: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Happy Easter / Passover everyone. More blog entries from me next week.

Newest IPCC Report to be Released on Friday

The IPCC will publish the second part of the fourth climate change assessment report this Friday. It is titled "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability." The draft outline can be found here. Overall, the message seems to be that the North will first enjoy the benefits of warming, while the South suffers; eventually negative effects dominate everywhere. The poor of the world, who have contributed the least to climate change, will suffer the most. New York Times reports at length about the report.

EU seeks to fight climate change with taxes

The Commission will on 28 March present ideas for “green taxes” to save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions. It says that such an ‘ecological tax reform’ could increase the bloc’s competitiveness by shifting the burden away from labour taxes.

EU heads of state and government, meeting in Brussels on 8-9 March 2007, committed themselves to reducing European CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels – a bold promise, when one considers that Europe is already struggling to meet its current target, under the Kyoto Protocol, of cutting these emissions by 8% by 2012.

Currently, the EU’s principal tool to reduce emissions is its carbon trading scheme, but the EU will have to find new ways to discourage pollution if it is to reach its ambitious goal. Taxation could provide an answer as it can be used to orient producers’ and consumers’ behaviours to non-environmentally friendly goods.

From http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?id=4261&photo=

Member states urged to take action on 'e-waste'

Consumer electronic manufacturers including Sony, Nokia and HP, and NGOs ranging from Greenpeace to Friends of the Earth, have called on the Commission to take action against 11 member states that have transposed the WEEE directive without making producers fully responsible for the recycling of electrical and electronic products.

The Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) aims to increase the reuse, recycling and recovery of waste from a variety of consumer products ranging from light bulbs to PCs. Electrical equipment is one of the fastest- growing waste streams in the EU.
The Directive aims to create incentives for producers to take the initiative to improve the design of their products and make them easier to recycle.

From http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/member-states-urged-take-action-waste/article-162349


Snack-maker aims for green consumers with carbon labels
By Fiona Harvey,Environment Correspondent, Financial Times

Packets of Walkers crisps will appear on the shelves today carrying the world's first "carbon labels", enabling customers to gauge the effect of their buying habits on the climate.
The labels will show that 75g of carbon dioxide are emitted to produce and transport 34.5g of Walkers crisps "from seed to store".

Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, thegovernment-funded body that helped to develop the labels, said: "This will be a driver for businesses starting to compete on their carbon footprint as much as on price."

The carbon labels come as companies try to impress their green credentials on environmentally conscious customers. Walkers has been working with the trust for five years and other -companies, including Boots, the retailer, are expectedto launch similar labels soon.
Innocent, the maker of smoothies and fruit juices, will include information on the "carbon footprint" of its products on its website initially, although in the future these could appear on the juice packaging.

Marks and Spencer said yesterday it was also working with the trust on carbon labels for some product lines. Separate from the Carbon Trust's work, Tesco announced earlier this year it would put carbon labels on all of its products, although this could take several years.
Mr Delay said the idea was likely to be adopted more widely: "This is a little beginning to something that could be very big." He said the labels would explain to consumers the CO2emitted from the products, which would enable people trying to buy ethically to choose between different products.

Ben & Jerry's, the ice-cream brand, welcomed the initiative but said it would not put carbon labels on its products until an international standard had been set.
Fiona Dawson, chair of the Food and Drink Federation's sustainability and competitiveness steering group, said: "A single methodology for industry as a whole is essential. This is a complex issue. To be effective, the methodology must be practicable, based upon sound science and easily understood."

Coca-Cola's ethics put to the test in European-wide study

Coca-Cola's performance as an ethically conscious global brand has come under scrutiny in a 15 nation, European-wide study into the soft drinks giant's involvement in social causes and environmental responsibility.

Over two-thirds of respondents questioned whether the company makes a positive contribution to society.The study, which was commissioned by Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School in Belgium, looked at the Socially Responsible Trading performance of Coca-Cola across 15 major European markets and eight separate consumer groups.

According to the report, more than 40% of respondents felt Coca-Cola was not making a positive contribution to society, with over-three quarters of those polled stating they were prepared to pay more for ethically produced goods.

Additionally, 86% of people surveyed said companies should speak about their charitable work, but a proportion of respondents said "virtue is its own reward".

However, the report warned that brands must be seen to be engaging in social and environmental programmes to remain successful.T

From http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?cust=1001&id=4306&url=http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/645693/Coca-Colas-ethics-put-test-European-wide-study/&photo=

Most DealBook Comments Ever?

John Doerr's tears elicited the kind of responses one would expect: disbelieving, cynical, accusatory, sympathetic and everything in between. There have probably never been as many comments on DealBook.

One reader pointed others towards The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that was shown on the UK Channel 4 last week.

What is powerful about this provocative program is the way TGGWS unearths how the public feels about climate change. People start discussing this stuff over the internet, and it is obvious many people harbor serious doubts. If you watch even a few minutes of this film, you'll see why and how, because it is fairly well made (with groovy background music...) Unsurprisingly, many viewers responded positively; some even saying that just as they had been convinced of global warming, they were right back to square one after having watched TGGWS. Here's one reader quote from a British news site, in response to TGGWS:

"Good. The sooner all this global warming hyper nonsense is consigned to the dustbin, the better off we'll all be. I've been telling people, for many years, to ignore the scaremongers. There never was any convincing evidence that CO2 produced global warming - and there's still none. More and more evidence, however, points firmly to the Sun as the cause of episodes of warming and cooling."

— Posted by Peter Warlow, Brentwood, UK

fter seeing a film like this, you start to ask questions: who made this film? Why? Why is a UK government channel showing it? Who paid for it and who received the proceeds?

1) The director of the film Martin Durkin doesn't have the greatest reputation. The Guardian's George Monbiot wrote about his films back in 2000, after Mr Durkin filmed a number of questionable documentaries, including one that claimed silicone breast implants protect women from breast cancer.

2) Professor Carl Wunsch of MIT, interviewed in TGGWS, is considering making a formal complaint against Channel 4, because his views on climate change in the film were misrepresented. Professor Wunsch believes human activity causes climate change, but his interview was edited such that he appears sceptical. Said professor Wunsch, "If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."

You could argue that the greater issue this raises is the inadequacy of science education that renders many of us frankly incapable of making sound critical judgments regarding the natural sciences.

Becoming hysterical helps nobody; Greenland won't melt next year. But even if fossil fuel combustion caused no environmental effects whatsoever (and it does, in addition to CO2 emissions), we would still have to find alternative fuel sources because oil resources are limited. Someone is still going to have to figure out what those sources are, and someone is still going to have to risk their money to fund the R&D.

90 percent of the world's transportation systems run on oil. Nobody contests the Hubbert peak oil theory, according to which the world will eventually run out of oil. People complain about gasoline prices, but they don't see the connection: increasing demand for a finite, declining resource leads to higher prices! Simple. Eventually the cost will be very high, and sometime later, we will need to rely on other fuels. John Doerr has more than a fair right to feel badly; who cares if he hopes to make a few dozen million dollars more? If one of his companies actually strikes gold and popularizes a new affordable, clean fuel to power all our cars, Doerr, in my view, is more than deserving of the cut he makes -- much more, one could argue, than the CEO of Shell that received a 6% pay raise (from €3.5 to €3.7 million) for overseeing the company's most profitable year ever, according to today's WSJ.

His Name is Bonderman, David Bonderman

Last week I blogged about the largest LBO in history. KKR and TPG (two huge American private equity firms) recently bought TXU, a Texan energy utility.

This deal was touted as a green LBO, because KKR and TPG agreed to freeze plans to build eight coal power plants and also invited a new board member onto the TXU board, William Reilly. Reilly has served as the chairman of WWF. Kauppalehti wrote about this in February.

After blogging about this deal, I emailed a friend of mine; he is an investment banker in New York, specializing in LBOs. "They've done the math", I argued, and said the financiers probably weren't doing all these good things just out of the goodness of their hearts. But perhaps I was wrong.

My friend blackberried me back, saying these green issues have been a "roadblock" to a deal for years (not sure what that meant -- we debated this stuff in December, without coming to any kind of conclusion. Still hoping for an invitation to his wedding, though...)

Anyway, I asked him about the deal because I wanted to know if he thought the TXU buyout signified a sea change on Wall Street. He wrote back with more information, all publicly available, but it has mostly gone unmentioned in the press.

Apparently, the major reason why the TXU deal was so "green" is, in fact, that David Bonderman, one of the founders of TPG (and the new owner of TXU) has been a board member of WWF, American Himalayan Foundation and the Wilderness Society.

Bonderman is not only a hugely successful investor -- he also sports a serious activist streak, of the suit-and-tie kind, and he pushed his agenda through in a big way, supported by pressure from numerous environmental groups.

Of course reducing emissions makes economic sense as well, especially in the longer haul, but certainly there's more than a pinch of goodness of heart there, too.

LSV energiaseminaari

Lääkärin Sosiaalinen Vastuu ry järjesti marraskuussa energiaseminaarin, jonka asiantuntijoina olivat mm. ydinfyysikko Säteilyturvakeskuksesta, säteilyvammoihin erikoistunut lääkäri, Greenpeacen edustaja ja uusiutuvien energiamuotojen tutkija VTT:ltä. Jos aihe kiinnostaa, presentaatiot ovat netissä.

LSV on lääkärien vastine Net Impactille. Amerikkalainen "No Free Lunch" -porukka on myös eräs muoto terveydenhuoltoalan aktivismista. Lääketeollisuuden etiikastahan ollaan puhuttu vuosien varrella suhteellisen paljon, esimerkiksi siitä kuinka lääketeollisuuden koulutustilaisuudet ja "lahjat" vaikuttavat lääkäreiden käyttäytymiseen ja heidän määräämiensä lääkkeiden tyyppiin ja määrään. Yleensä sponssaus alkaa jo lääkiksen aikoina. Esimerkiksi nuorten lääkäreiden stetoskoopit ovat (käsittääkseni) Suomessakin usein lääkefirmojen sponsoroimia. (Hyvä stetoskooppi maksaa 100-200 euroa.) "No Free Lunch" kannattaa lääkärien ja lääketeollisuuden tiiviin siteen eriasteista proaktiivista rajaamista, kuulakärkikynistä ja stetoskoopeista lounaisiin ja golf-outingeihin.

An Inconvenient Truth wins two Oscars; Conscious capitalism the next megatrend; Citigroup publishes climate report

"An Inconvenient Truth," the big-screen adaptation of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's slide-show lecture about the perils of global warming, won Academy Awards on Sunday for documentary feature and best song. Great job, Al Gore - What's next? I think that Hollywood will wote democratic this year.

Patricia Aberdene is considered one of the leadind mega-trend predicters in the world. In the year 1982 she predicted the transformation intoa new information age, and in the 1990 she wrote about jumping further into a technology based and web- based reality. In her latest "Megatrend" book, in 2002, she predicts the step towards a conscious capitalism. According to Aberdene traditional capitalism " business as usual", has proven to be destructive to humanity, environment and society at large. She points out that the next megatrend in business is competitive advantage based on corporate responsibility, where social and environmental performance will define the winners and loosers. Get her book on Amazon on http://www.amazon.com/Megatrends-2010-Rise-Conscious-Capitalism/dp/1571744568
If Aberdene's predictions once again prove to be true, ethically consciouss consumers will be mainstream, and businesses will compete to be the most responsible company.

Citigroup has published a massive climate report. It is filled with physics, climate science and graps, but one section provides extremely interesting information: The behavioral implications of climate change on corporations. the section is split into four parts: how climate change affects consumers; litigants; investors; and corporations. Here are some best shots:


Consumer behavior

• Consumers in the two countries responsible for the most emissions of GHGs (USA & China) care least about the issue
• On average European consumers would only pay up to 5% premium price on a climate friendly product
• Historically, consumers have anyway had great power in pushing through more environmentally sound solutions: Remember CFCs (used in aerosol sprays) and the Tuna Boycotts? Consequently, consumer products businesses are starting to adapt their products for clime-conscious consumers.

Litigant behavior

• If corporations do anyway not care about what consumers think, then they might care of the actions of litigants. There are at least two very interesting trials coming up in the U.S. this year: First, the supreme Court is set to rule on the federal regulation of GHG emissions (the question is whether GHGs are pollution, and whether Environmental Protection Agency EPA should have the mandate to regulate them). Second, the Alliance of automobile Manufacturers against the California Air Resources Board and its efforts to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles in California.

Investor behavior

• Carbon disclosure Project, a coalition of institutional investors representing more than $US 31 trillion in assets, has, for the past several years, been requesting information perfaining to GHG emissions from large multinational companies. 72% of the global FT500 companies responded to the request in 2006 (up from 47% in 2003).
• Climate-related shareholder resolutions that were filed with U.S. companies tripled in 2004-2005 the number of 2000-2001
• SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) funds in the U.S. rose in 2005 to 2,29 $ trillion, so that nearly one out of ten dollars under professional management was involved in SRI.

Corporate behavior

• Consumers, litigants, and investors all affect corporate behavior
• From corporate perspective, climate-friendly policies have five distinct advantages: They may lower costs trough energy-efficiency; They enhance corporate reputation and brand; They may yield a 'first-mover' advantage; they may lead to expanded market potential for new products; they institutionalize a climate-friendly mentality and keep management alert to climate related opportunities and risks.
• In 2006 McKinsey survey, 28% of executives in 116 countries cited environmental issues, including climate change, as one of the issues likely to have the most impact on shareholder value over the next five years.

2-Year Study of Polar Changes Commences

Scientists from more than 60 countries. $350 million budget. Over 120 research projects.

The latest IPCC (Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change) report excluded estimates of changes in the Greenland ice sheet, because polar melting it is not well understood, at least not well enough to be used as the basis of a scientific report. This is about to change, as a new two-year polar study commences. The New York Times reports on the study here.

The effort is called "The International Polar Year". (The projects, as said, will actually take two years, from March 2007 to March 2009.) What will the scientists be doing? According to the Times,

They will use gliding underwater robots, giant icebreaking ships, satellites and other technologies to explore polar climate, biology, geology and ocean chemistry, and they will undertake physics and astronomy studies that can be done only at the poles.

Here's something else interesting: the Times' environment reporter Revkin traveling in the Arctic. The sites links to short video clips from his arctic journeys. One video included sounds of oil exploration that Revkin had recorded in the Northern Alaskan tundra.

Carbon Offset

Here's a new article from the Guardian about companies who deal in carbon offsets.

What are carbon offsets? The basic idea is that if you are responsible for emitting carbon (e.g. you take a flight to France), you can buy a service or a slice of a service that offsets the damage done: this could come in the form of tree planting, sewage clean up in a less-developed country, or directly in the form of a carbon permit.

How much does carbon offset cost? It depends on the service you're using and on how much carbon your flight emits. If you fly from Finland to France, you won't have to offset as much (it's voluntary though) as you would if you were flying to Honduras.

By buying carbon offsets, you'll be supporting renewable energies, environmental clean up services, reforestation efforts and other anti climate change measures. The schemes aren't without critics but the point is to be doing good to offset the "bad."

Who is in this business? The article talks about companies who sell carbon offset services. Each of the carbon offset firms (here are some companies in this business) gives a different number of tonnes of CO2 emitted for the same flight; as a result, the offset cost can vary ten-fold, according to the article.

How much does it cost? That depends on the number of tonnes of carbon that one is responsible for emitting (or is assumed to) and the market price for a tonne of carbon. There is no standard number of tonnes of carbon emitted per flight of X kilometers; each carbon offset firm calculates it differently. The market price for carbon, however, is quoted (and very difficult to locate, still!) somewhere on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme website. Carbon isn't like pork bellies or crude oil, though. A while back when doing research, a website with over-the-counter secondary market prices for tonnes of carbon popped up, but unfortunately the URL got misplaced. Must go through a few emails to find it, since I did forward to someone. Anyway, like the "truth is out there", carbon prices are out there somewhere, too... only both are seemingly hard to find at times...

Can Markets Cut Carbon?

Two of the largest market-based initiatives to cut carbon dioxide emissions are the EU ETS (EU Emissions Trading Scheme) and the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; in the Northeastern United States.) The EU is talking about a common European energy policy. US corporations are working with environmental groups.

What is the role of carbon trading (cap and trade) in cutting emissions? This article explores some basics and links to a number of great sites. Could carbon trading curb emissions by placing a price on carbon? How will it work globally?

Policy Tipping Point in the US?

Climate change policy shift in the US is featured as the top story on today's CSRwire.com. Reuters reports that policy is approaching a tipping point.

In the Guardian, scientists warn it may be too late to save the ice caps.