Today
Sections
More
Features
Displaying 1 - 10 of 39 |
Next »industry
Electric cars: Worth spying for?
There was a mystery in the pages of the New York Times this weekend. The front section's table of contents promised, on page 6, the tale of three Renault execs who were fired last week for corporate espionage. On page 6, more intrigue: The article wasn't there! It was, however, on the internet, offering a shadowy account of the company's suspension of three highly placed employees who disclosed top-secret information about the company's plans for all-electric vehicles.
The Nissan Leaf (photo courtesy Nissan)
The stakes are high: The French automaker, now partnered with Nissan, is betting its future on the popularity of the electric vehicle. It plans to introduce no fewer than three electric cars in Europe this year: a sedan, a light commercial vehicle, and a city car.
Unless the espionage thwarts its plans, Renault's gamble is probably a good one. Also last week, the judges of the Detroit auto show gave all their top awards to EVs and hybrids — proof, according the Guardian, that "analysts [are] bet[ting] on rising oil prices and wider acceptance of electric cars." Nissan's Leaf took second place to the Chevy Volt.
It's unclear to whom the Renault execs disclosed the company's EV plans, but suspects include China and competing automakers.
| January 11 2011 at 06:53 AM
EPA memo reveals concern that pesticide causes bee deaths
A prime suspect in bee colony collapse — the mystery that threatens a third of our food supply — is neocontonoid pesticides.
Bayer's clothianidin (brand name Poncho) — which is excreted in pollen — is particularly suspect, and beekeepers and environmentalists recently called on the EPA to pull the pesticide from the market.
The groups based their request on a leaked EPA memo [pdf], which questioned the validity of the study Bayer used to obtain approval of the pesticide.
According to the memo:
information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoids insecticides ... suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.
Although Bayer's initial study turned up no problems, the memo states, "in another review of this field study in light of additional information, deficiencies were identified that render the study supplemental."
Essentially, the memo seems to suggest that further study may be needed and that, in the meantime, clothianidin should bear a label indicating that it is harmful to bees.
Strangely, the EPA is now downplaying the memo's significance, in language that also downplays colony collapse — which is weird because beekeepers have lost between 30 and 90 percent of their hives since 2006, and bees, it bears repeating, help produce a third of our food.
My guess is the EPA doesn't want to ruffle any corporate feathers while it sorts out what to do about clothianidin — but sort it out it must before we run out of fruits and nuts and get really cranky.
| December 28 2010 at 02:00 PM
BP shot down in attempt to block lawsuits
Publicly, BP has claimed that it will take full responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon spill off the Gulf Coast.
But the fine print in contracts it offered fishermen to help clean up the massive spill tells another story.
The company offered the idled fishermen a onetime payment of $5,000 to use their boats and labor to deploy booms to contain the spill. But, in exchange, the fishermen had to waive their right to sue BP for damages resulting from the spill. And, to add insult to injury, if they damaged their boats while deploying the booms, BP would not cover the damages.
The fishermen were thus presented with the choice of sitting idly by, unpaid, while oil ruined their catch, or helping protect their livelihood while also agreeing not to hold BP responsible for their potentially devastating losses.
They found a third way: a lawsuit. On Sunday, a Louisiana court insisted BP remove the offending language in contracts offered in that state, and this morning a federal court struck the language from all contracts related to the spill.
| May 04 2010 at 10:46 AM
How Dixie Cups are destroying the planet
If you don't follow environmental news, you may never have heard of Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States.
Of course, if you do follow environmental news, you will have heard that the Koch brothers are aggressive funders of climate denial.
ExxonMobil has been wearing the scarlet letter D for denial, while Koch Industries has been outspending them by a margin of almost 3 to 1, according to a new report from Greenpeace. The company has pulled it off because it has no brand name. But it does own Georgia Pacific, which makes Dixie Cups, Brawny paper towels and Angel Soft and Quilted Northern toilet papers.
In and of themselves, these non-recycled throw-away paper products aren't great for the environment, but given where their profits go, it's time to toss them out for good.
Look at climate denial by talking points and you'll quickly stumble upon Koch money. Climategate? Check. "Polar bears are doing fine"? Check. The so-called Spanish study that, with bogus methodology, "proved" that green energy kills the economy? Check.
Think of climate denial in terms of obstructionist lawmakers and you'll quickly spot Koch money in their coffers. The brothers gave more than $10,000 each to James Inhofe (R-Ok.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Jim DeMint(R-S.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Boehner (R-Oh.), Eric Cantor (R-Vir.), and Joe Barton (R-Tex.).
Look at climate denial as a list of right-wing think tanks, and you'll also find Koch money in the safe: Americans for Prosperity, which funded this summer's astroturf "Hot Air" protests, got $5 million. The Cato Institute has been on the climate beat since the 80s. In recent years alone, it's gotten $1 million from the Koch brothers; ditto the Heritage Foundation.
So, if you're an environmentalist or you just support real science over junk science, think about crossing Brawny, Dixie Cups, Angel Soft and Quilted Northern off your shopping list for good.
| April 08 2010 at 12:56 PM
Climate law supporters to boycott Valero
The Texas oil company Valero is emerging as the out-of-state dark horse backer of the ballot measure to suspend California's groundbreaking climate law, AB 32, much as the Mormon Church did with Prop 8.
When last TGL covered the battle over AB 32, word had just broken that much of the repeal movement's money was coming from two out of state oil companies: Valero and Tesoro, both of Texas. As their campaign ramped up, an analysis concluding that AB 32 would hurt the state's economy also hit the news.
The analysis smelled fishy from the start. Almost immediately, NGOs began to suggest that it was little more than unsupported assertions. Indeed, so did the state's Legislative Analyst's Office. The exact word the LAO response employed to describe it was "useless." (For links to the credible studies that conclude AB 32 will not dampen the economy, check here.)
But Valero, the 12th largest polluter in the nation, fired back, releasing — through the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, of which it is a leading member — a study funded by industry and conducted by the right-wing Pacific Research Institute, where one of Valero's chief lobbyists serves on the board.
If Valero doesn't respect California voters, perhaps voters ought to deny them our purchasing power: That's the logic of Credo and the Courage Campaign, who are organizing a boycott. Valero may not be a California company, but it has plenty of gas stations in the state: Click here for a map of stations in the Bay Area.
Ironically, on this particular score, you might be better off buying from California's own Chevron, which certainly has its environmental black marks, but continues to support AB 32.
| April 06 2010 at 07:09 AM
California's cap-and-trade trial run
The California Air Resources Board released a draft plan to impose a cap-and-trade regime on the state's utilities, refineries and factories.
The Chevron refinery in Richmond emitted more than 4.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2009.
The plan, which comes as part of the implementation of the sweeping environmental law AB32, makes California a laboratory for testing how the market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will work. The same arguments lodged against the federal government's attempt to create a cap-and-trade system are in play in the Golden State. (Read here to learn more about how cap-and-trade systems work.)
Industry claims the cost will be prohibitive, both to businesses and, in turn, to their consumers. Some major environmental groups have responded by supporting the distribution of free polluting allowances, though most environmentalists want the allowances to be auctioned off. Auctions would generate revenue that could go to developing renewable energy infrastructure or tax breaks for consumers and businesses that could face higher electricity and fuel prices.
In a press conference, CARB chair Mary D. Nichols also indicated her preference was for the allowances to be auctioned off, rather than given away. But the matter has not yet been settled in the draft version.
Also controversial are offsets, which allow companies to invest in saving forests, for example, rather than reducing their own emissions. The California law allows offsets to be used for just under half a company's reductions.
A few environmental groups, including Communities for a Better Environment and California Environmental Rights Alliance, reject the market approach altogether, charging that cap-and-trade regimes don't reduce emissions. (Read the Feb. 19 press release here for a full critique.) And at least one industry group questions whether CARB has the right to implement the regime.
As California moves forward with the plan, we will gain clarity about cost, effectiveness and legality. An important point of comparison is the Acid Rain Program, the 1990 pioneer of cap-and-trade regimes, which proved much cheaper and more effective than its critics had predicted. Any problems with the emissions system could potentially be corrected in federal legislation.
Sadly, though, even California's trailblazer emissions policy won't go into effect until 2012.
| November 25 2009 at 12:01 PM
Earth to cell phones
Some environmental problems, like the state's water supply, are thorny problems with no easy answers. But other problems have such a straightforward solution the only question is, why haven't we implemented it already?
So it is with the phone charger (H/T Mother Jones). How many old ones do you have kicking around in a drawer? If you're loyal to a particular phone, you may even have several identical chargers. Because they're electronic, you're also burdened with disposing of them properly lest they leach their toxins into some poor, unsuspecting landfill.
Not only that but chargers use a good bit more electricity than they need to and are vampires—meaning they continue to draw power even when they're not, you know, charging.
Now imagine a world where not only did phone chargers use less energy, but they were universal, meaning any charger fit any phone. That would mean about 600 million fewer chargers each year stashed in drawers around the world and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 to 24 million tons a year—not even to mention e-waste.
The UN's International Telecommunication Union has approved this universal dreamboat of a charger. It will use half as much energy on standby. Samsung, Nokia and Motorola have already agreed to use it. Of course, they're hemorrhaging business to BlackBerry and Apple...no word yet from those guys.
But you can make an effort to support this simple solution by buying a phone with a universal charger the next time you replace your phone. You might even consider a hand-cranked or solar-powered model. (Ed. note: Hand-cranking is way easier than you'd think! They even have a hand-cranked vibrator.)
SFGreen on Facebook
| November 05 2009 at 11:49 AM
Does shipping need a sea change?
This morning's oil spill in the bay, nearly two years to the date from the infamous Cosco Busan incident, is a stark reminder of the environmental hazards posed by shipping.
The Panamanian oil tanker spilled bunker oil, which powers most ships. It is the gunky stuff literally from the bottom of the barrel of oil. It contains high concentrations of sulfur and is 1,000 times dirtier than the diesel fuel that trucks use. Some green groups have called on the shipping industry to use cleaner fuel. Biofuels would be great, but even more refined fossil fuels would be a start.
Hilda Solis, now the Secretary of Labor, proposed legislation requiring cleaner fuels in U.S. waters when she was in the House of Representatives, and California's own Barbara Boxer backed the Senate version. Both tanked.
California has a state law requiring the use of progressively cleaner fuels beginning in 2012. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association sued to block the legislation, but lost. Because the state has such active ports, NRDC estimates that ocean vessels expose 80 percent of Californians to "significant cancer risk" and that the legislation will save 3,500 lives per year.
But fuel is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of shipping's environmental hazards. Ships routinely dump both fuel and trash into the ocean. And they are a primary vector for invasive species, taking in water in one port and dumping it in other ports, which releases algae and small marine species. The zebra mussel has swept across much of the northeastern United States, including the Great Lakes, after being released by a freighter in 1988. According to Wikipedia, at least, battling the mussel costs the Coast Guard $5 billion a year.
An international convention demanding that the ballast water be treated prior to release has not been ratified.
[UPDATE: California has such a law in place; it will also take effect in 2012.]
Because shipping is by its nature international, it has proved resistant to even common sense regulations like these. Indeed, companies often look for the bottom of the barrel in environmental and other regulations, shopping around for a flag to fly over their ships.
Meanwhile, national and state authorities are handed the bill for accidents like this morning's. Nonprofits also do much of the clean-up work. Marine Spill Response Corp. is already on the scene today.
I will update if and when I hear of volunteer clean-up efforts. In the meantime, if you see oiled wildlife, call (877) 823-6926.
| October 30 2009 at 01:31 PM
Yes Men hit the Chamber of denial
TGL has covered the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's strange lobbying activities: It overtly claims it supports action—just not any action anybody has ever suggested—on climate change, while more covertly continuing to deny that climate change is real, and, if it is, air conditioning will make it no big deal.
Mother Jones has been far more dogged in its coverage of the chamber, with posts citing the disclosing the Chamber's grossly inflated representation of its membership numbers as well detailed exposees on the group's double-speak. While the MoJo staff is pretty clearly having a good time with this, the Chamber's hackles were raised enough that it challenged the media outlet to a fact off. (Full disclosure: I was a fact checker at Mother Jones; my money's on them.)
The Chamber's hackles were also raised yesterday when political pranksters the Yes Men staged a press conference, posing as representatives of the business organization, to announce that they'd done a 180 on their position on climate change. The media was totally buying it (Reuters even released a story) before someone who really represents the Chamber showed up rather flustered.
The fake press conference has gotten fairly widespread media attention. My favorite story is NPR's. It's interesting, though, that not one of the stories I've seen or heard mentions the Chamber of Commerce's backroom denials of climate change, sticking instead to the group's own disingenuous claim that it wants to see carbon regulated...somehow, sometime.
The MSM did, however, attach a dollar amount to the CofC's rather un-humorous climate lobbying efforts: a record-breaking $300,000 a day.
Here's Rachel Maddow's coverage of Yes Men stunt.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
| October 20 2009 at 11:30 AM
More questions about Chevron videotapes
A New York Times article published on Friday raises more questions about Chevron's relationship to the two men that produced the videotapes that, according to the company, reveal a scheme to bribe the judge then presiding over its Amazon lawsuit. (The judge has since recused himself while also proclaiming his innocence.)
A press release put out by plaintiffs' groups further notes that Bloomberg News has reported that Diego Borja, one of the men who allegedly made the tapes, worked for Chevron as a field technician during the civil trial, just months before the videos were made, and also has an office in a small building where Chevron's local Ecuadorian legal team also maintains its offices.
The Times also finds no evidence to support the company's claim that an Ecuadorian man in the tapes is the power broker for the country's ruling party that he claims to be.
Because the men who made the tapes had no apparent motive to do so other than compensation from Chevron (why record yourself successfully bribing someone unless you have reason to want to ruin that person?), suspicion continues to mount that the tapes are essentially fakes and/or that they show Chevron's own attempts to bribe people involved with the decision. Plaintiffs groups are calling for a DOJ investigation into Chevron's actions, given that bribery abroad is a U.S. crime.
I see an investigation as a good chance for the federal government to show foreign nations that it doesn't condone corporate meddling—of whatever kind—into sovereign justice systems. Even if the tapes are nothing but a bad frame job, other countries deserve a little more respect.
For a review of Crude, a current documentary about the case, click here, and for an interview with director Joe Berlinger, click here.
| October 13 2009 at 03:48 PM
more