TXU Buy-Out is Green

Coal powers most of the world by providing electricty and is also responsible for a large percentage of CO2 emissions. Even though there are efforts to create clean coal, energy companies need to have a better ‘green business strategy’.

In a previous post, there was a argument about how private equity may drive a “green business strategy”. This week’s TXU buy-out provides more evidence.

Matthew Wheeland, Managing Editor of GreenBiz, writes in this weeks newsletter about the unprecendented buyout of Texas energy utility TXU by Private Equity players.

The new owners announced that at least eight of the planned power plants would no longer be built, and that the new owners would increase TXU’s commitment to sustainability.

The Red Herring suggests that Coal is losing in this acquisition.

Some environmentalists are hailing this buyout as a possible win because it comes with an announcement that the company has given up plans to build eight of the 11 proposed coal-fired plants. The scale-back represents a 75 percent reduction in new coal capacity, or 56 million tons of annual carbon emissions, according to a TXU statement on the sale.

Executive Editor of GreenBiz Joel Makower said that the deal is a major development because the environment became a “top line negotiating point for utility acquisition.”

“I think it puts everybody on notice that carbon is an investment risk and that utility growth going forward needs to look beyond fossil fuels,” said Mr. Makower.

GreenBiz.com explains why this buy-out may provide a signal to other energy companies.

Eric Kane, an analyst at Innovest, said this his company recently highlighted the risks to investors from TXU’s expansion plans. “Although the TXU case was unique in its proposed scale, the challenges faced are indicative of a growing trend throughout the utility industry,” Kane said, and added that “the lessons learned from TXU will have national implications. Industry peers will face similar challenges as they move forward with expansion strategies that rely on new power plants that utilize outdated, highly polluting pulverized coal technology.”

Update: Andrew Winston at Eco-Advantage talks about being “On the Right Side of History”.

2007 ANUgreen Sustainability Internships

For sustainability students in Australia this could be a good chance to get some experience in this field.

The ANUgreen Sustainability Internship program is designed to give students experience working on practical sustainability projects within the ANU Sustainability Office (ANUgreen). The ANUgreen program works to reduce the environmental impact of the ANU through the implementation of the ANU Environmental Management Plan (see www.anu.edu.au/anugreen).

In first semester 2007 there will be 7 Sustainability Internships available for work on a number of projects including:

  • Water conservation initiatives in science labs
  • Water conservation initiatives in the Halls
  • Water management in the ANU landscape
  • The drafting of an ANU Greenhouse Gas abatement plan
  • Analysis of the ANU Organic Recycling Project
  • Green Building design for the ANU
  • Education for Sustainability and the ANU curriculum

What does it involve?

Each internship is valued at $1500, and requires you to work in the ANUgreen office for 7 days. At the end of the internship you will required to provide ANUgreen with a report detailing the outcomes of your project. It might also be possible for you to use the report, or some other aspect of the project for assessment in a course you are enrolled in. Please note that it is the student’s responsibility to check with their lecturers if this feasible.

How do I apply?

To apply for an internship please draft a 250 word essay that explains how an ANU Sustainability Internship will help advance your academic and professional career, and send this, along with your CV to David.Carpenter@anu.edu.au by Friday 23rd March 2007.

Green Card Required

Jennifer Kho writes about the growing regulation in electronic waste and the opportunities present for companies all over the world in the supply chain.

Imagine a mountain of trash weighing as much an oil tanker. That’s how much electronic waste the world discards every hour, according to Greenpeace.

New environmental regulations that go into effect in China on March 1 aim to shrink that mountain of waste into a molehill. The Chinese effort is the latest attempt by governments aroudn the world to tackle the problem of growing electronic waste. But while makers of computers, cell phones, and other electronic gadgets might applaud that aim, many worry that they won’t be able to comply with the new laws in time.

The new laws are hitting the electronics industry hard. Companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and NEC have all redesigned their products to comply with E.U. regulations, basically making Brussels the de facto arbiter on world standards.

But whatever their source, the new rules have forced changes in materials, designs, and processes, opening a mountain-sized opportunity for new players throughout their supply chains.

But no matter how much it costs companies to comply with the new regulations, it almost certainly will cost them more in fines, or worse outcomes, for ignoring them. Apple last year pulled its iSight web camera from Europe after it decided that it would be too expensive to meet RoHS specs; by December, Apple stopped selling the product in the U.S.

To be fair, the electronics industry is being asked to implement extremely complex changes in a short amount of time, says Elizabeth Grossman, author of the book High-Tech Trash. “I couldn’t think of another industry that operates on such a large scale internationally that is being asked to make these kinds of changes,” she says.

China and India – Climate Change is Clear and Present Danger

The Financial Times discusses the need for China and India to face the climate change challenge.

The world’s two fastest-growing large economies are growing increasingly conscious of the global warming in which their rapid development is playing a part.

The UN report signals a decisive shift in the debate, drawing attention not just to overall levels of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere over time – largely from industrialised countries, led by the US – but also to the rising flow of greenhouse gases from big developing nations.

The article compares the “cumulative emissions” of China and India vis-a-vis the US and the OECD countries.

Although China and India acknowledge their emissions are rising, they argue that, per capita, they remain a tiny fraction of those from developed countries. Moreover, China’s cumulative emissions are only one-third of those of the US and one-sixth of those of all the developed countries grouped in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to the World Bank. The cumulative emissions of India, which has a higher energy efficiency rate than China, are about one-tenth those of the US.

What if Australia had the population of China?

Gao Guangsheng, the director of China’s Climate Change Coordination Office, pointedly singled out Australia, population 20m, at a recent conference in Nairobi, saying that if it had as many people as China’s 1.3bn, its carbon emissions would total 8.6bn tonnes a year. China’s emissions are now about 1.3bn tonnes a year.

The Indian Finance Minister talks about India’s right to develop.

We are prepared to assume our share of the responsibilities and obligations, provided the world recognises we have a right to grow and that means that we will consume large quantities of energy and, second, that we need to be given access to clean technology, including civilian nuclear energy,” he says. “If these two points are recognised, I have no doubt that India and other developing countries will come forward to assume their share of the responsibilities. But we are not the largest polluter: our carbon emissions are still very small.”

At the end of the day whatever be the situation, India and China both face increasing environmental issues due to Climate Change.

Both China and India suffer from acute air and water pollution. In 83 Indian cities for which air quality monitoring data are available, more than 84 per cent of the population was in 2004 forced to inhale poor, bad or dangerous air. Only 3 per cent had access to air that was rated good. China is home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities, with dirty air causing the premature deaths of 400,000 people a year. About 340m people, about one-quarter of the population, do not have access to clean water.

Still, both China and India are clearly concerned about climate change for their own sakes, let alone the impact on the rest of the world. In China, scientists warn that the impact of rising temperatures on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau could alter the amount of water flowing into the Yangtze and Yellow rivers, which originate in the region. The same sort of impact may be felt in key Indian river systems.

India’s agricultural productivity, already flagging, is thought likely to suffer because of high temperatures, drought, flood and soil degradation. The Chinese media have cited similar scenarios, including a fall in grain output by 10 per cent a year from 2030. Such threats run counter to the maintenance of food security, which both governments prize.

If the issue is not acknowledged then China and India will increasingly face water, food, resources, pollution and other problems. Adaptation and change is better for both.