New California Greenhouse Gas Law: How It Will Affect California Industry By Richard Jarman

California has just passed a law that’s designed to lower the amount of greenhouse gas pollution the state puts out. The idea is to stop, or at least slow down, the effects of global warming. It’s a little complicated, but here are the details as I see them:
--Businesses in the state need to cut their greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020.
--Industries that are traditionally heavy-polluters, like refineries, power plants, and cement makers, will be required to report on their progress in lowering emissions.
--A state agency, the California Air Resources Board, will be in charge of implementing and enforcing the new regulations.

The law is a little vague as to how the board will enforce theses regulations, and how to handle industries that cannot meet the new standards. The bill calls for “market solutions” to be used in these situations, but doesn’t detail those solutions.

What does it mean? Gov. Arnold and Dems in the legislature hail this as a chance for California to lead the country in setting hard limits on this type of pollution. Many Republicans and business people say this will cause higher prices and job losses for our state. The Competitive Enterprise Institute released a statement with my favorite headline: “California Votes to Join the Third World.”

What’s the truth? Honestly, there’s no way we can know. Both sides are driven by certain beliefs, many of which have shaky foundations. Supporters of the bill believe:
--That global warming is an absolute fact, caused largely by human pollution.
--Further, they believe that if governments put hard limits put on industrial pollution, companies will develop technology that will make those industries cleaner.
--The new technologies will result in more, better jobs, and that those jobs will offset any job losses that industry suffers.
--Supporters are also betting that the whole country will adopt hard pollution limits, so there will be no advantage in companies leaving the state.

Opponents of the bill have a whole different set of assumptions:
--They aren’t at all convinced that humans have a decisive part in global warming. Most people in this group say that if the climate is warming, it’s part of the natural cycle the earth has gone through many times.
--If the technology to make these industries cleaner does not come along, companies will need to find another way to cut pollution levels back to 1990 levels. Some companies would have to cut production, resulting in higher prices. Others would simply leave the state, with potentially thousands losing their jobs. Either of these scenarios would devastate California’s economy.
--If other states, or the nation as a whole, does not enact similar standards, the state likely will see more companies leave for states with looser pollution regulations.

Which side is right? My crystal ball is in the shop, so I can’t see the future. But both sides have legitimate points—the problem is that one of them will be proven wrong. California chose the side it thought was right, and for the sake of our economic well-being, all of us who live here have to hope they are correct.

What kind of business opportunities might come about because of this bill? Four opportunities are likely to come about in the next few years:
--Companies will come up with cleaner, more efficient processes for heavy polluters to do their business. Companies are sometimes reluctant to change their familiar, proven methods of manufacturing, but these new standards may leave them little choice.
--It seems likely that some companies will turn to alternative energy sources, and those involved in producing that energy stand to benefit.
--Manufacturers that find themselves dramatically lower their emissions could profit by selling their “clean air” credits to companies who pollute too much. The Air Resources Board will probably set up a system where heavy polluters can buy these credits from non-polluting companies. This could be a potential windfall for clean companies.
--Companies will need people who have studied the new law, and its effects, in detail. These people will profit by showing companies how to navigate the maze of new regulations that is sure to result from the new law.

The full impact of this legislation won’t be felt for several years. But California companies cannot afford to wait. The companies that will profit in the new California landscape will be those that can adapt quickly, find new ways to do things, and figure out exactly what the regulations mean to their business.

Richard Jarman is a professional business writer specializing in working with manufacturers and other businesses that are looking to take their written materials to the next level. You can expect quick, professional service, and crisp, compelling work that will make your business look its best. Go to our website and sign up for our free newsletter and get a FREE report: "15 FREE Ways to Market Your Business." http://www.jarmanbusinesswriting.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Jarman

U.S. Aluminum Industry to Help Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission By Ryan Thomas

The global community is now facing the biggest threat to its existence in the form of global warming. To address the threat of global warming, different industries including the auto industry has taken major steps to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned and the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. And recently, another industry has expressed dedication to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

The aluminum industry announced on March 24th their “Position on Climate Change”. The said action was taken after the meeting of the members of the Aluminum Association.

Patrick Franc, the Chairman of the Aluminum Association, has this to say about the issue: “We believe that it is important for the U.S. aluminum industry to assume a leadership position in this cause for environmental sustainability of our industry and products, on a market-wide and global basis.” Franc is also the president of the ARCO Aluminum.

The industry acknowledged the threat of global warming to the planet as reported by scientists. The industry further concedes that the planet is increasingly becoming warm due to the excessive release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which radiates heat from the sun. The industry also agrees that to combat the issue, greater efforts would have to come from every industry that has mushroomed from all corners of the world.

Government involvement is also urged by the Association. The industry encouraged the legislative body of the United States to enact laws which will recognize the pay off of recycling towards reduction of greenhouse gas emission. The industry reports that the energy invested on the production of aluminum is offset by the reduction of energy need in recycling their products. The energy savings on recycling of aluminum amounts to 95 percent compared to the initial production.

The U.S. aluminum industry has already taken steps towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as according to Steve Larkin, the president of The Aluminum Association. “The aluminum industry in the U.S. has made considerable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, offering both experience and a positive track record in this cause. Our contributions through recycling and downstream emissions reductions through better, less emitting automobiles will help the United States and other countries protect the environment,” he further emphasizes.

The use of aluminum on vehicle parts such as a Nissan exhaust tip and the body of the vehicle also reduces the amount of greenhouse gases released. This is because aluminum is a lightweight metal and the lighter the vehicle, the less power it needs. And the less power it needs, the less fuel it needs to burn which translates to less emission.

The aluminum industry also recycles these parts and they are supporting the enactment of legislations which will give incentive to companies that recycles aluminum. One form of incentive that they are asking from the government is the tax credit for companies in the aluminum industry.

Ryan Thomas is a native of Denver, Colorado. He grew up in a family of car afficionados. He now resides in Detroit where he owns a service shop and works part time as a consultant for a local automotive magazine.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ryan_Thomas

Carbon Credits - Friend Or Foe? By Gary W Patterson

Climate change is an environmental issue that has become a global concern affecting all nations. To this end, countries worldwide are taking collaborative measures to mitigate the problem. For example, the Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by more than 100 countries (read: a dramatically lower number are formally bound) includes many regulations and initiatives whose objectives are to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One popular initiative that the Kyoto supports is carbon credits, also known as carbon offsets (which is actually a form of regulatory tax since someone has to pay a carbon tax to provide the credit part of the carbon credit system.)

Carbon credits are measured per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. Typically, a government or an international body establishes a system that sets a limit, known as a cap, on the total amount of emissions from all participating countries. Participants are given equal allowances, or credits, based on the cap system. (There is a problem determining carbon caps because there is minimal agreement and integration among groups and regulatory bodies about implementation time frames and use of tax proceeds that creating carbon credits. This issue goes beyond the scope of this article.)

Participants (generally read Companies) are then organized into groups. If participants need to exceed the cap, they have to buy carbon credits from other groups who have unused credits, at a value set by the market. Simply put, carbon emissions are treated as commodities that can be traded between participants, while the total number of credits being traded in the market must not exceed the total cap.

Reward-Penalty System
The overall objective of carbon credits trading is to encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Those that do not exceed their cap may sell their unused credits in the market or directly to other companies that have to exceed their cap. This implies that those that do not exceed their cap are rewarded by being able to sell their credits; while those that are not able to control their emissions are penalized and have to pay the price.

The Kyoto Protocol has created a system of trading caps among its signatory countries (a total of 181 countries, which include Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Norway, United Kingdom, India, to name just a few). Basically, the cap requires countries to reduce their emissions 5.2% below their 1990 baseline over the 2008 to 2012 period. The total amount of carbon credits to be allocated among countries is determined by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) projects, which allow for the creation of credits through emission-reduction projects.

In some countries, cap-and-trade systems patterned after the Kyoto Protocol are being employed alongside policies that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the United States has several carbon measures in place, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), and an initiative provided for by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 in California.

Proponent Viewpoint
Proponents point out that the world at large has to start somewhere to arrive at a system that begins to reduce greenhouse emissions. They argue that carbon credits offer the best intermediary solution until that time comes when a more definitive and viable system is put in place. They also praise the carbon credit process because it is governed by a global marketplace, as opposed to other more bureaucratic and self-serving schemes. Advocates say reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change should be a collective effort. Governments have responded by making carbon credit trading a more lucrative way of enticing industries to do their share in solving a global problem.

Opponent Viewpoint
Parties opposed to the carbon credit system argue that it is a counterproductive measure that unfairly penalizes consumers and businesses compared to using tax incentives or tax credits. Opponents also argue that a cap-and-trade system is another way for politicians and their governments to get more money for causes their lobbyists prefer and not necessarily do what is best for the country as a whole. They argue that alternative energy sources should be subsidized until technology and scale of application results in lower prices that makes renewable energy affordable. They believe that governments are exploiting the situation and plan to raise taxes for non energy purposes.

Most countries agree that there are environmental and health benefits to be gained in moving toward a greener business environment. Given this position, the conversion to some renewable energy policy is probably inevitable. The overwhelming concern, however, has to do with how these policies will be executed. The timing and total costs (direct and indirect) of the changes are not clear. At the root of this concern is the uncertainty about which groups will benefit and which groups will suffer. But one thing is certain: With congressional leadership favoring the acceleration of greener energy in a way that benefits their constituents and lobbyists, there will definitely be winners and losers.

What the carbon credit discussion points to is the urgency for business to begin planning NOW for the inevitability of a greener world. Those businesses that prepare for it will prosper; those that do not will suffer the consequences.

Bottom line? - Stop Profit Leaks. Apply this information to improve your profitability, re-engineer business models, and strengthen or gain competitive advantage in the marketplace. And apply the free Fiscal Test at http://fiscaldoctor.com/fiscaltest.html

From Gary W Patterson, http://www.FiscalDoctor.com Copyright 2008

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Gary_W_Patterson

The Benefits of Recycling By Michael Russell

Recycling is a priority in the United States. In fact, the United States recycles more than 24 percent of its waste. This is the highest percentage in the industrialized world. This is only appropriate considering the United States also produces the most amount of waste in the industrialized world. Recycling can bring out about economic and environmental benefits.

The recycling industry has made a vital contribution to job creation and economic development in the United States. In 2000, the recycling industry was responsible for more than 1.1 million jobs and a yearly payroll of $37 billion. For every 10,000 tons of waste that is recycled, 36 new jobs are created. If you were to incinerate the 10,000 tons of waste instead, only one job would be created. In addition, for every employee there is collecting items that can be recycled, there are 26 employees that turn these items into new products. There are as many employees in the recycling industry as there are in the automobile and truck manufacturing industry. Also recycling industry employees make more money than employees in other industries.

Recycling helps prevent global climate changes by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions can result from the manufacturing, use and disposal of products. Greenhouse gas emissions are a part of nature and they help create climates that sustain life on earth. If greenhouse gas emissions reach dangerous concentration levels, then you might see rising global temperatures, sea level changes and other climate changes. Recycling can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the following ways:

Manufacturing paper, plastics, glass and metal from recycled materials requires less energy than manufacturing these products from virgin materials because the recycled materials have already been processed. Also if you were to use virgin materials, you would have to spend additional energy extracting and transporting the virgin materials. For example, recycling aluminum cans saves 95 percent of the energy required to make new aluminum from virgin materials. Recycling steel and plastics would require 60 percent and 70 percent less energy, respectively, than making these products from raw materials. Recycling nearly any material will require less energy than producing the material from virgin materials. In 2005, recycling saved over 900 trillion BTUs, which is the same amount of energy used in 9 million households annually. This energy conservation results in less fossil fuels being burned. This means that less carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is released into the atmosphere. If 6 tons of glass and one ton of aluminum were recycled, then 1 ton and 13 tons of carbon dioxide, respectively, would not be released into the atmosphere.

Recycling also keeps materials out of landfills. This is important because materials in landfills can decompose and release methane gas. Methane gas is a greenhouse gas that is 20 to 30 times more dangerous to the environment than carbon dioxide. Municipal solid waste landfills are responsible for 34 percent of methane gas emissions attributed to Americans.

Waste combustion from incinerators can release greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Recycling can reduce these emissions by keeping materials out of incinerators. In 2003, recycling kept 72 million tons of material from incinerators and landfills.

Trees help combat the global climate changes by absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it in wood in a process called carbon sequestration. Continued efforts to recycle paper would allow more trees to continue to absorb carbon dioxide. If a ton of newspaper is recycled, 12 trees would be spared. Recycling one ton of office paper would save 24 trees.

Michael Russell Your Independent guide to Recycling Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Michael_Russell

Carbon Emission Trading, the Basics Explained By Dwayne Strocen

The Kyoto Protocol is a UN-led international agreement reached in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan to address the problems of climate change and the reduction greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol went into force on February 2005.

Signatory countries are committed to moving away from fossil fuel energy sources - oil, gas, and coal, to renewable sources of energy such as hydro, wind and solar power, and to less environmentally harmful ways of burning fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are mainly generated by burning fossil fuels. Higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming and climate change.

The Protocol commits 38 industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-2012 to overall levels that are 5.2 percent below 1990 levels. Targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction were established for each industrialized country. Developing countries including China and India were asked to set voluntary targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

The Canadian target for Kyoto is to reduce by 2012, greenhouse gas emissions by six percent below their 1990. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and in February 2002 introduced the Clean Skies and Global Climate Change initiatives, in which targets for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are linked directly to GDP and the size of the U.S. economy.

Trading of carbon emissions is linked to a program called Cap-and-Trade. Understanding this concept is necessary to begin effective trading. A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of emissions discharged into the atmosphere. Companies that exceed the cap may be subject to fine or regulatory sanction. Therefore, those who find they cannot meet the conditions of the cap will look to buy credits from those who pollute less.

Many older established companies are forced to spend considerable sums of money modernizing plants. In many instances this takes time, usually years to achieve. In contrast to new generation technologies which are not faced with up-grading facilities to comply with 1990 emission standards. Trading emission credits is a way for low emission companies such as wind farms to sell credits to benefit higher emitting companies. Cap-and-trade programs ultimately aid in being a net benefit to the host country by enabling it to meet it's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol Agreement.

From the very beginning, this first phase of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, or EU-ETS, was intended to be a learning period to work out the kinks and entice major greenhouse gas emitters on board.

On January 1, 2005, the EU-ETS came online with the cap-and-trade program covering approximately 12,000 installations including electricity production and some heavy industry. These 27 member countries of the European Union represents roughly 45 percent of total European CO2 emissions.

Now three years later, amid a flurry of expectations and public controversy, the European Union has credible results to back up its claim of success. Recently, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) affirms that despite rather unstable beginnings, the system has been an unprecedented success. More importantly, it opens the door for skeptical countries like the United States to follow suit.

The United States would have been required to reduce its emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels had it accepted ratification of Kyoto. Instead, U.S. emissions have now risen more than 16 percent between 1990 and 2005.

The Bush administration and Republican lawmakers opposed to emission caps have been touting the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which consists of Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. The aim of the initiative, which began in 2005, is to foster cooperation on ways to improve clean energy development and lower emissions without global mandates. But since the initiative started, the United States, India, and China have come under increased domestic pressure to move toward mandatory emission controls. California is among several U.S. states that have entered into partnerships or passed laws for controlling greenhouse gases ahead of the federal government, leading to a showdown with congressional lawmakers. Major U.S. cities have also instituted a host of policies designed to cut greenhouse gases.

Without the United States entering into a binding commitment, it is feared that several developing countries which have not yet signed plus some Kyoto signatories may be unwilling to agree to additional international commitments.

Dwayne Strocen is a registered Commodity Trading Advisor specializing in analyzing and hedging Market and Operational Risk using exchange traded and OTC derivatives. Website: http://www.genuineCTA.com.
View in depth information about Carbon Emissions and the benefits of hedging its risk.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dwayne_Strocen

Compact, Green Subdivisions May Benefit Greenhouse Gas Reduction - Green Building Help And Tips By E. Lee Reid

Concerns about vehicle use and carbon dioxide emission numbers and their possible implications for climate change issues are having an impact on the Greening of large residential developments, as reported in a late 2007study by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

Green development and building is the practice of increasing the efficiency of homes and other buildings as developers and builders utilize energy, water, and materials. Green development and building also enhances overall building impacts on human health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal; the complete building life cycle.

The compactness of a residential subdivision is defined as how close together the homes are built.

According to the Energy Information Administration, carbon dioxide has the largest impact on global warming of any of the monitored greenhouse gases. About 33 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the transportation sector, and among these, carbon dioxide emissions represents 95 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from mobile transportation sources.

These concerns have prompted states such as California, Massachusetts and Washington to require that real estate developers quantify greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle-use in large residential projects they are planning. However, these states typically do not provide any guidance on how to perform the calculations, and there is currently no well-established, verifiable method for estimating carbon dioxide emissions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for households in a particular development.

The NAHB study estimates household gasoline consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), which is conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) within the Department of Transportation. Standard statistical methods were used to estimate gasoline consumption as a function of the geographic and household characteristics available in the NHTS data. Housing units per block group was used as a standard for the compactness of a residential subdivision (how close together the homes are built).

1.56 to 4.69 housing units per acre translates into about 0.21 to 0.64 acres per home, which is a fairly typical lot size for new construction. About 31 percent of single family detached homes completed in 2006 were built on lots falling into this size range. Nearly 80 percent are on a lot that was 0.64 acre or smaller. However, lot sizes will generally be smaller than acres per housing unit measured over a block group or subdivision. This is because a subdivision will also include roads and other public spaces.

Because carbon dioxide emissions are computed as a simple ratio of gasoline consumption, carbon dioxide emissions also decline as the subdivision becomes more compact.

According to the study, it was not possible to control for every conceivable factor with a possible impact on gasoline consumption in a statistical model based on the NHTS data. Characteristics such as nearby concentrated employment centers and their proximity to a particular subdivision, for example, would impact overall gasoline consumption.

The research shows little relationship between efficiency of vehicles owned, such as hybrids, and subdivision compactness. The exception is that residents in the least dense subdivisions tend to own less efficient vehicles. On the other hand, there is a clear relationship between subdivision compactness and the average speeds vehicles are driven. As the subdivision becomes more compact, the estimated results show that vehicles are driven fewer miles, but they tend to be driven slower which is a a less efficient speed. However, the congestion effect (less efficient driving speeds) is not strong enough to completely offset the effect of reduced emissions.

So, on balance, households in more compact developments still tend to use less gasoline and thus generate fewer carbon dioxide emissions.

Lee Reid is the founder and CEO of eLeeReid, Inc., a real estate, construction, hospitality, continuing education, and vacation ownership company. The Reid Team has successfully built and/or managed thousands of condos, homes, and commercial properties in North Carolina and Florida, as well as recent condo hotel conversions near Disney World. Reid holds a MBA degree from the University of Memphis and a Master in Hospitality Management certificate from Cornell University's world-renowned School of Hotel Administration. Reid is a Florida Class A unlimited certified General Contractor, Realtor, and Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) candidate. His book, Marketing Made Easy! was published by the National Association of Home Builders. Visit with Lee and eLeeReid, Inc. by clicking any of the above links.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=E._Lee_Reid

The Relationship Between Recycling and the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Martin Barwise

Greenhouse gas emissions are known to be directly related to the perceived heightened warming of the earth's oceans and near-surface air. But how does recycling help in cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions?

Recycling is used to refer to the reprocessing of previously manufactured products (such as plastic bottles) so that their core elements (in this case, the plastic substances that make up plastic bottles) can be used to make new products later on. It should be clarified that recycling is different from re-use, because the latter simply means that the previously manufactured product (such as a plastic bottle) will be used for other purposes aside from its original use (such as when a plastic bottle is cut in half and then converted into a plant container.)

When previously manufactured products are recycled, this helps in reducing the amount of energy used to produce new products (compared to "virgin production" where products that are manufactured from substances that were taken purely from the earth's environment – also known as raw materials.) One substance that has been quite damaging to the environment is plastic, because it does not degrade and become re-absorbed into the environment. There is also less waste that goes into disposal systems such as landfills when recycling is put into play.

When products are recycled, there is less need to look for raw materials from virgin sources. For example, aluminum is one substance which can be recycled over and over again without a decline in the quality of the substance. When plastic is recycled, up to 70% of energy is saved. If paper is the substance being recycled, up to 40% of energy is saved. When less energy is used to produce a product, that means less greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, which helps reduce the impact on the environment through the greenhouse effect.

Energy is also saved because there is less of the virgin or raw materials that has to be sought after, there is less energy needed to transport these virgin materials from their original sources, and there is less energy to be expended trying to clean up the environment when pollutants like non-biodegradable aluminum and plastic containers are dumped into landfills.

Some criticize recycling since there is still a level of energy required to transport recyclables to recycling centers and recycling plants, and in the recycling process itself. However, the energy savings derived from recycling are considerable, and much less energy will be used to make new products from recyclables compared to the use of virgin materials for manufacturing new products. Another criticism is that recycling can become impractical because the cumulative costs for recycling a certain product may outweigh the environmental benefits derived from recycling.

Despite such criticisms, it is generally accepted nowadays that recycling does help the environment by significantly reducing demands on energy supplies, so that less greenhouse gases are emitted, and can be a cost-effective solution in certain cases.

Green Store UK sells eco friendly gifts and energy saving gadgets. We have various energy saving gadgets such as the Smart Adapter which is a remote control plug set which enables you to quickly and easily turn off electric items off standby.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Martin_Barwise