TreeHugger News: Is Buffett Backing Coal?

photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/xtauymatiao/3879354932/">Christa Uymatiao</a> via flickr.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


 

Editor’s Note: A weekly roundup from our friends over at TreeHugger. Enjoy!

Bucking the Trend, Stern & Pachauri Maintain a Global Climate Deal Still Possible in Copenhagen

With the needle of expectation tilting towards no full climate deal being reached in Copenhagen, two of the most prominent voices in the climate change policy world—Lord Nicholas Stern and Dr Rajendra Pachauri—maintain that a global agreement is still possible in six weeks. Even without full US participation…

Is Tackling Climate Change as Important as Fighting Crime?

Some 63 percent of the world thinks so. A survey by HSBC questioned consumers from countries as disparate as the US, Brazil, Malaysia, Germany, and India about the importance of tackling climate change in relation to other pressing social issues—and the results are fascinating. For instance, the majority of people felt that mitigating climate change is as important as fighting crime.

China, US, and Climate: An Interview with Yang Fuqiang, WWF’s Director of Global Climate Solutions

For more than two decades, Dr. Yang Fuqiang has been a participant in the energy and climate change discussion in and around China. His career began as a researcher at the National Development and Reform Commission, the Chinese government’s main economic planner, and continued for three decades in the realm of energy and the environment. Formerly head of the Energy Foundation’s China office, he is now director of global climate solutions at the World Wildlife Foundation. TreeHugger spoke with him recently in Beijing, before he left for the Barcelona round of climate talks.

Is Warren Buffett’s Railway Buy a Billion Dollar Bet on Coal?

The initial reaction to news that the Oracle from Omaha was investing billions of dollars in BNSF railway was positive—TreeHugger noted that it could lead to a number of positive developments: potentially more passenger rail lines, a higher profile for railroad transportation in general, and further investment in other rail lines from other finance big guns. But there’s a downside to his purchase as well—the rail Buffett bought transports some 1/5th of America’s coal. Is Buffett’s investment therefore a bet that coal will need to be shipped into the foreseeable future?

The 100-Mile Diet for Electrcity? The Institute for Local Self-Reliance Argues for Decentralization

The Insitute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) has released a second version of its study titled Energy Self-Reliant States. In it they look at various ways that U.S. states could generate clean electricity locally (rooftop solar PV, onshore wind, offshore wind, etc). Just from the name of the institute, it’s pretty obvious that they aren’t in favor of centralized solutions to our energy problems, but at least they aren’t all ideology: They back up their claims with a lot of data.

US Plastic More Expensive to Make, Will Have Higher Carbon Footprint Under Cap & Trade

In Europe they commonly make commodity plastics from oil-based feedstock: petroleum naptha from the refinery. In the USA, however, plastic is mostly is made from natural gas as raw material. The chemical industry is not pleased with the current cap and trade provision being voted on in Congress. They anticipate C&T will drive utilities to burn more natural gas and less coal to generate power (a good thing by most people’s reasoning), which means (per the chemical industry argument) higher operating costs, and ultimately customers getting plastic from European instead of US factories.

‘Chinese’ Wind Farm in Texas: Green Jobs FAIL?

The buzz around the green blogosphere today is another record-setting Chinese wind farm, with 240 turbines producing 648 megawatts. But this one isn’t in Inner Mongolia — it’s in Texas. This $1.5 billion wind farm—a US-China joint venture paid for in part by Chinese banks —will be built not with turbines from usual suspects GE or Vestas, but with Chinese-made machines from a year-old company called A-Power. Needless to say, most of the project’s green jobs will be created in China. And don’t shoot the messenger, but it’s hoping to secure 30 percent, or $450 million, of its financing from, yes, U.S. stimulus funds.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate