cfo.com

cfo tagline

The Cost of Climate Change

A new study predicts the higher cost of carbon, as proposed in Congress, would hurt the earnings of 14% of the S&P 500.

Sarah Johnson, CFO.com | US
June 2, 2009

Ways to Profit From Protecting The Environment

We started to see this trend growing in 2005-2006. There are ways of profiting from this and protecting the environment if you play your cards right. Look at the CCX exchange and the off-shoots( green-shoots) from it for more information and ideas.

Posted by Tom Lincoln | June 03, 2009 05:32 pm

Cows and methane

There are many sources of global warming and not all are man made. If we are instituting cap and trade, it should be on all global warming causes and not just CO2. For example, methane gas (CH4) has been shown to have a larger effect per pound on global warming than CO2, why is that ignored? Also, CFC's (flourocarbons) are 10,000 times more warming per pound than CO2, though less prevalent, are those capped? Capping all sources can be problematic though. Cows burp methane as a byproduct of their digestion processes, are farmers going to have to pay cap and trade for the methane their cows produce? Garbage dumps and landfills also produce methane, will WasteManagement be charged for the methane that OUR trash produces? We should encourage use of wasted methane and reward companies that do so (see the BMW partnership with WasteManagement to use excess landfill methane to power a BMW plant as an example). All of the permafrost in Russia that is now defrosting as temperatures rise also emits methane, will we tax Russia in a global cap and trade? Will Russia need to paint their rocks and fields white (sarcasm) to reduce heat absorption and keep their permafrost from melting? And corporations burning dense jungles in South America to make room for soybean farms or rice paddies not only reduces the trees that turn CO2 into O2, and erodes and kills the land, but also emits large amounts of CO2, CH4, and toxic matter into the air. Are we going to tax the corporations burning the forests? (we should) I am just saying that there are many sources of emissions out there that are more damaging than the average company produces, and yet the companies will have to foot the bill, and pass the costs on to the consumers. This is merely a new corporate tax that is to be levied unequally and unfairly. The goals are admirable: reduce emissions, use the taxes to pay for further remediation, etc. But how much of that new revenue will actually go toward this purpose? It needs to be managed by an independent non-profit organization (lobby-proof) with strong mandates and government support, global reach, and strong oversight. Otherwise cap and trades will just increase costs to the consumer, not reduce emissions, and not make a difference.

Posted by Patrick Sweeney | June 03, 2009 04:15 pm

Science not politics

I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But more and more it looks like is a natural phenomenon to me, possibly exacerbated by CO2. A year ago I launched www.energyplanusa.com where I try to bring common sense discussion to our country?s energy policy. I set out to find the 'smoking gun' that proves global warming is driven by CO2. Instead, I found that the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the UN?s IPCC reports on climate change, are compromised by politics and an agenda, and that man-made global warming theorists cherry pick facts and ignore contradictory evidence from reliable studies. In short, there is no smoking gun. Yhe man-made crowd refuses to entertain other possibilities. Yes, CO2 MAY contribute to global warming but to say it DRIVES global warming goes beyond science into the realm of agenda driven politics. Before the United States increases the cost of energy with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, we need to establish a non-political commission to review the facts and evidence surrounding global warming. The UN, a political organization, should not be determining American energy policy. The stakes are huge. If we respond to global warming incorrectly, our children and grandchildren will likely lead lives of increasing hardship and desperation.

Posted by Robert Moen | June 02, 2009 07:43 pm

CFO Publishing Corporation 2009. All rights reserved.