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.

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...

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.

Your next algae-powered joyride?

The New York Times reports that venture capital investment into green energy is soaring, and one of the newest developments is algae as fuel.

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.

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?

Itämereen kaavaillaan jättimäisiä tuulipuistoja

(STT) Virolaisyhtiö Nelja Energia haluaa rakentaa Itämerelle viisi suurta tuulivoimapuistoa, joihin tulisi yhteensä lähes 200 tuulivoimalaa.

Hiidenmaan luoteispuolelle kaavailtujen tuulipuistojen yhteenlaskettu teho nousisi ydinvoimalan kokoluokkaan. Tuulipuistot olisi tarkoitus yhdistää sekä Viron että Ruotsin sähköverkkoon.

Slow Travel; The Trouble with Palm Oil; Venture Capitalists and Energy Policy

Writer Ed Gillespie will begin a year-long journey around the world in March. Plenty of people travel around the world every year, but Gillespie plans to do it without flying. The Guardian helps Gillespie kick off the project with a piece on slow travel. He will also be blogging about his experiences on the road.

In other news, the Netherlands are quickly learning that not all biofuels are equal or eco-friendly. A few years ago the Dutch began to advocate the use of biofuels as a substitute for oil. In a follow-up, scientists were sent to investigate the palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia. The investigative team found that the plantations used great amounts of fertilizer, cut down huge tracts of rainforest to plant more palm trees, and burned peatland for additional plantations, releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Whatever positive effects palm oil has were overshadowed by environmental degradation. A European Environment Agency representative noted, “It’s important to take a life-cycle view,” and not to “just see what the effects are here in Europe.”

Finally, the New York Times reports how tech barons take a new role: energy policy. Venture capitalists have a great stake in the outcomes of energy policy.

The Next Zeppelin?

The Guardian reports that the United States desires a leading role in the fight against climate change. In an article titled "US answer to global warming: smoke and giant space mirrors" (pun assuredly intended), the Guardian reports that Washington wants to develop technologies to block sunlight from entering earth's atmosphere. The technologies include giant mirrors in space and reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere.

Perhaps openmindedness is in order; that said, would any of this ever, um, fly? Giant mirrors and "magic" dust?

The US government document can be found here.

Questions: 1) which nation would be developing these technologies or would it be a mutual effort? 2) can we afford not to achieve consensus for years to come: the EU and Japan etc. trying to go the Kyoto way, while Americans would go it alone and continue emitting CO2, business as usual? 3) would Washington want this to be an internationally funded project on the basis that it would benefit everyone, a project whose costs would thereby need to be covered by all? 4) would something like this actually be feasible i.e. does it make sense? 5) how much would it cost? 6) who would produce these technologies: would the proceeds go to an American corporation X or some other interest group?