USA TODAY Collegiate Case Study: Climate Change

8/9/2019 USA TODAY Collegiate Case Study: Climate Change

1/15

Collegiate

Case

Study

THE NATIONS NEWSPAPER

Fixing climate carries big costBy Dan Vergano

...........................................................................10-11

Candidates talk of alternativefuels, different goalsByMartha T. Moore

................................................................................5-6

Global warming a hot spot forinvestors

ByAdam Shell and Matt Krantz................................................................................7-9

Critical inquiryDiscussion and future implications

........................................................................................15

Catch a wave, throw a switchBy Paul Davidson

...........................................................................12-14

www.usatodaycollege.com

Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co., Inc. All rights reserved.

The issue of global climate change includes environmental, political and eco-nomic ramifications. Today these effects are being addressed at many levels,from world climate change forums to local grassroots initiatives. Investing inrenewable fuels and energy are among some of the ways to lower greenhousegas emissions; however, implementing these approaches can be costly. This casestudy explores the various efforts being made to combat global warming and thecosts associated with them.

Climate Change

By By Patrick ODriscoll and Dan VerganoUSA TODAY

A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude thathumankind's reliance on fossil fuels coal, fuel oil and natural gas is to blame forglobal warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which it isbased.

USA TODAY Snapshots

New books classified as global warming beingpublished, year by year:

12

15

36

39

Source: Compiled byAndrew Grabois,Books-in-Print

By Adrienne Lewis, USA TODAY

Rise in books on global warming

2002

2003

20040042004

2005

Photo illustration by Dixie D. Vereen and Web Bryant, USA TODAY


2/15

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS NEWS SECTION, JANUARY 31, 2007

Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. Page 2

The gold-standard IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) reportrepresents "a real convergencehappening here, a consensus that this is atotal global no-brainer," says U.S. climatescientist Jerry Mahlman, former directorof the federal government's GeophysicalFluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.

"The big message that will come out isthe strength of the attribution of thewarming to human ac tivities," saysresearcher Claudia Tebaldi of the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)in Boulder, Colo.

Mahlman, who crafted the IPCClanguage used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new reportwill lay the blame at the feet of fossilfuels with "virtual certainty," meaning99% sure. That's a significant jump from"likely," or 66% sure, in the group's lastreport in 2001, Mahlman says. His role inthis year's effort involved spending twomonths reviewing the more than 1,600pages of research that went into the newassessment.

Among the findings, Tebaldi says, isthat even if people stopped burning thefossil fuels that release carbon dioxide,the heat-trapping gas blamed most forthe warm-up, the effects of highertemperatures, including deadlier heatwaves, coastal floods, longer droughts,worse wildfires and higher energy bills,would not go away in our lifetime.

"Most of the carbon dioxide still wouldjust be sitting there, staring at us for thenext century," Mahlman says.

"The projections also make clear howmuch we are already committed" toclimate change, Tebaldi says, echoing thecomments of more than a dozen IPCCscientists contacted by USA TODAY. Evenif every smokestack and tailpipe stopsemissions right now, the remaining heatmakes further warming inevitable, shesays.

The report will resonate worldwidebecause the current debate over globalwarming has been more about what isresponsible people or nature? thanabout whether it is happening.

President Bush only recently hasacknowledged the link, mentioningglobal warming in last week's State of theUnion address. It was the first time hehas included climate change in theannual speech before Congress. Bushcalled for developing renewable andalternative fuels.

The IPCC was established in 1988 bythe World Meteorological Organizationand the United Nations EnvironmentProgram. This will be its fourth climateassessment since 1990. The last one, in2001, predicted average globaltemperatures would rise 2.5 to 10.4degrees by the end of this century. Therise from 1901 to 2005 was just 1.2degrees.

The report is the work of more than2,000 scientists, whose drafts werereviewed by scores of governments,industry and environmental groups. Thedocument is based on researchpublished in the six years since the lastreport.

The analysis comes at a time whenawareness of global warming in the USAand efforts to combat it are more intensethan ever. Former vice president AlGore's climate-change documentary AnInconvenient Truth scored two Oscarnominations last week. Meanwhile, somestates and hundreds of American citiesare taking steps to curb emissions thatintensify the heat-trapping "greenhousegases" in the atmosphere.

Leaks about dr oughts, f loods

Officially, the panel's 2007 findings arestill under wraps, but details have beenleaking out for a year, particularly inrecent weeks.

News accounts have featuredprojections of more droughts, floods,shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels.

There is so much media attention now,"I almost think there won't be anysurprises compared to six years ago,"says Steve Running, a University of Montana ecologist. "When the reportcame out (in 2001) it was all 'new' news.This time, I think everybody will say,'Well, yeah, that's already what we'vebeen hearing about.'"

Michael MacCracken, chief scientist forthe Climate Institute, a Washington, D.C.,think tank, says the studies underlyingthe report make the broad conclusionsclear anyway. A 2005 Nature magazinestudy, for example, narrowed the 2001estimate of warmer temperatures to anincrease from 2.7 to 8.1 degrees by theyear 2100.

Similarly, two Science magazine studiesin 2005 of satellite and balloonmeasurements of temperatureconfirmed the Earth's atmosphere iswarming exactly as predicted fromhuman-caused increases in carbondioxide.

Wave of new initiatives

What will be released this week is thefirst of three parts of the report: ascientific synthesis of global warming'sphysical manifestations that includesmeasurements and projections of temperature, precipitation, storms, wind,polar melting and sea levels. New thistime is a chapter on paleoclimatology,the study of climate change from fossilsand the reconstruction of data and cluesgoing back hundreds of thousands of years.

In addition to the extensive scientificconclusions, which MacCracken sayshave been settled, a short "summary forpolicymakers" is still being hammeredout and will be released Friday in Paris.


3/15

Page 3


Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

The second phase of the report is onthe effects of those measured andprojected changes and is due in April. Athird group's work on ways to try tolessen those impacts is to be released inMay.

The IPCC report lands amid a rush of climate-change developments. Sharing

the spotlight:u Congress. After winning a majority

in the House and Senate in November'selection, Democrats have climate-change bills in the works. House SpeakerNancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is creating aspecial committee on climate change.Next week, the House Science and

Technology Committee will discuss theIPCC report.

u States. More than 12 states aretaking steps to reduce greenhouse gases.California Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggerthis month ordered the world's firstlow-carbon limits on passenger-car fuelsin the most populous state. The new

standard would reduce the carboncontent of transportation fuels at least10% by the year 2020.

u Cities. More than 375 mayors whohave signed pledges since 2005 to cutgreenhouse-gas emissions in theircommunities launched a drive last weekfor major climate legislation in Congress

this year. They represent 56 millionpeople in all 50 states. The day after theState of the Union address, the U.S.Conference of Mayors announced globalwarming is No. 1 on its top-10 list of priorities.

u Industry . Ten major companies,including industrial giants General

Electric, Alcoa and DuPont, joined fourenvironmental and climate groups lastweek to demand swift passage of federallegislation to cut emissions that worsenwarming. Their U.S. Climate ActionPartnership says further delay only"increases the risk of unavoidableconsequences at potentially greatereconomic cost and social disruption."

Projections

Temperature Globally, averagetemperatures may rise by 2.7 to8.1 degrees

Heat waves Heat waves

become more severe in southernand western North America

Precipitation Rain and snowincrease in the nations northernstates overall and decrease indrier regions

Frost days Fewer days thatcross the freezing point,particularly in northern states

Seal level Level may rise by 20inches or less by 2100; ice-sheet

collapses may add more.

About three more heat waves

that last three days or more in atypical year

U.S. temperatures rise the most inUpper Midwest and MountainWest, perhaps by 7 degrees

A major report on climate changes was released by a United Nations-sponsored panel. The report draws heavily uponevidence and projections from published articles. Some projections from those studies for this century.

u Drought and flash floodsu More and larger wildfires

u Heat-related deaths and

blackouts as power grids overload

u Higher air-conditioning billsu Ski resorts relocate north assnow pack meltsu Wheat belt and other cropsshift north

u Barrier islands, New Orleansand South Florida inundatedu

Owners of coastal homesunable to get flood insurance

u Longer growing seasonu Relocation of crops to matchplant needs with new climate

About 6 inches less rain for theSouthwest and 6 more inches forthe Northeast in a typical year

At least 50 days a year, on average,that never fall below 32 degreesin the Pacific Northwest

Coastal cities and towns see moreflooding and erosion asdevelopment raises vulnerabilityto storm surges

What it means Possible effects

Ef fects of warming may reshape weather, economy

Sources: Nature , Science , National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Park Service, EPA, Energy Department, Climate Institute


4/15

Page 4Reprinted with permission. All r ights reserved.


In their own studies, Tebaldi and her

colleagues at NCAR found broadagreement in climate projections forNorth America by 2100, including a risein average temperatures from 3 to 9degrees.

That could lead to more frequent heatwaves and more warm nights whendaytime temperatures linger longer aftersundown, especially in the South andWest, Tebaldi's group concluded. NCARalso says increasing rain would soaknorthern states but bypass the alreadydry Southwest, where drought would be

more common except when torrentialrains bring flash floods.

The IPCC report is likely to reflectclimate uncertainties and disagreements,too. Scientists have strongly debated thelast two years, without resolution,whether global warming intensifieshurricanes.

Rising sea levels are a huge concern forthe USA because more than half thepopulation lives within 50 miles of thecoastlines, according to the NationalOceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. The 2001 reportcontained a wide estimate of the rise thiscentury from 3.5 inches to 34.MacCracken says that projection hasfallen to about 20 inches or less.

Such a drop in the top estimate alarmsglacier experts such as John Turner of theBritish Antarctic Survey, who was quotedin the United Kingdom's Guardiannewspaper as saying the low projectionis "misleading." He says the low numberaccounts only for the heat-related rise of

sea level and slow trickles from ebbing

glaciers, and it ignores potential ice-sheet collapses in Antarctica orGreenland.

"Greenland is just a relic of the last IceAge, after all, just jutting out into theAtlantic, frozen at latitudes further souththan anything else," MacCracken says."What might happen when it getswarmer?"

Are repor ts too cautious ?

MacCracken contends past IPCC

reports have been too conservative,partly by design, in warning about thedangers of climate change, especially sealevel rise.

"Scientists don't like to be wrong, sothey tend to discount the most uncertainthings," MacCracken says. "And that'sgood, but policymakers and riskmanagers usually want to know theworst case, as well as the middle one,when they plan for things."

Every IPCC report has beencontroversial. When the 1995 report'seconomic analysis estimated that theworth of a human life in a developingnation is less than in developed ones, ittriggered protests and sit-ins.

In 2005, federal hurricane researcherChris Landsea resigned from the IPCC,suggesting its hurricane warnings weretoo overblown and "politicized."

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. of theUniversity of Colorado at Boulder hassuggested that development and

deforestation, rather than the burning of

fossil fuels, are the main drivers behindglobal warming. He says on his climate-science website that the IPCC shouldrecognize the importance of these otherfactors.

In contrast, Australian scientist TimFlannery has complained in his 2005book The Weather Makers: How Man isChanging the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth that IPCC estimatesdownplay the impact of warming.

In Paris this week, the process of

negotiating and revising the shortsummary is painstaking and "line byline," says Kevin Trenberth, one of thelead authors and climate analysis chief atthe National Center for AtmosphericResearch. More than 100 of the panel's193 member nations are taking part inthe negotiations on the summary, hesays.

"They'll do a lot of rewriting. It's allgoing to change to cover the concerns of each nation," whether it's monsoons inIndia or polar bears in Canada, saysMacCracken, who helped lead the USA'sinvolvement in the IPCC in 1995 and2001. The summary also must betranslated in six official U.N. languages.

In 1995, MacCracken says, negotiationsat the meeting in Madrid stretched from8 a.m. to an hour past midnight.

"But luckily, it was Madrid," he adds,"so the restaurants were still open at 1a.m."


5/15

Page 7For more educational resources, visit http://education.usatoday.com Page 5Reprinted with permission. All r ights reserved.

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS NEWS SECTION, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007

By Martha T. MooreUSA TODAY

When Democratic and Republicanpresidential candidates push renewableenergy from wind farms, solar cells andbiofuels, one might think they're alltalking about the same thing.

They're not. Democratic candidatestalk about renewable energy as a way tocut greenhouse gases that cause globalwarming. Republican candidates talkabout renewable energy to reduce theuse of foreign oil or, as they call it, toachieve "energy independence."

What's being proposed to achieve onedoesn't necessarily help the other.

Global warming is at the top of theagenda this week at the United Nations,where Secretary-General Ban Ki Moonconvened a special debate on the topicMonday, and in Washington, where theBush administration Thursday gatheredrepresentatives from t he 15 largesteconomies to discuss how to tackleclimate change after the 2012 expirationof the Kyoto Protocol.

In the presidential campaign,Democratic candidates support "cap andtrade" systems to reduce global warmingby cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Theidea would set a limit (or cap) on theamount of carbon dioxide emissions

nationally but let industries tradepermits that allow certain levels of pollution.

Legislation to create a national cap andtrade system is in the Senate. Europe hasa similar system, and a 10-stateNortheast regional program is set tobegin in 2009.

"We have a crisis on this planet andthat crisis is global warming," formersenator John Edwards said in a speech in June when he called for capping carbonemissions, auctioning carbon permitsand investing the proceeds in renewableenergy.

Democratic candidates also want anincrease in average fuel efficiency for anautomaker's fleet. They support anincrease to as much as a standard of 50miles per gallon from the current 27.5mpg. And they support requiring utilitiesto obtain power from renewable sources,a measure already in effect in 25 states.

Sen. Chris Dodd and former senatorMike Gravel also support a tax on carbonemissions. A carbon tax is less appealingto environmentalists than the cap andtrade system, says Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense, an advocacygroup, because it doesn't specify theamount of carbon emissions that wouldbe reduced.

Republican candidates don't go as far.

Only Sen. John McCain supports a capand trade system. Former New York Citymayor Rudy Giuliani and formerMassachusetts governor Mitt Romneystress the need to invest in alternativefuels as a way to reduce U.S. reliance onoil but don't support a cap on emissions.

Romney says he'd consider a cap only if other countries joined in. "We don't callit America Warming, we call it globalwarming," he said during a campaignappearance in South Carolina in August.

"Primarily, he would just dramaticallyincrease federal spending on research,development and demonstrationprojects," says Melissa Davis, a Romneyadviser.

Increasing use of ethanol, nuclearpower, wind and solar "would help withglobal warming," Giuliani said in a radiointerview in Florida in April. "Even moreimportantly, they'd help to make usenergy independent so we wouldn'thave to be sending money to ourenemies."

To some environmentalists, theRepublicans' rhetoric is only partiallyacceptable. "Almost all the Republicansacknowledge that global warming is realand that humans are causing it," saysGene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters, a group that trackscandidates' positions on climate change."The bad news is that, with theexception of Sen. McCain, none of themsupport mandatory programs that arenecessary to get the job done."

To reduce dependence on oil, Giuliani

Candidates talk of alternativefuels, different goalsDemocrats and GOPtake separate pathson renewable energy

E L E C T I O N 2 0 0 8

USA TODAY


6/15

Page 6

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS NEWS SECTION, SEPTEMBER 28, 2007


and Romney support nuclear power andthe use of liquid coal, a process of

turning coal into auto fuel. That putsthem at odds with some Democrats,because although coal is plentiful in theUSA, creating and using liquid coalcauses more greenhouse-gas emissionsthan using oil, according to the NaturalResources Defense Council.

Democrats are split on liquid coal.Edwards, for example, calls it "a terribleidea," and opposes it, as do Sens. JosephBiden and Dodd. Sens. Barack Obamaand Hillary Rodham Clinton are less

definitive: Both say they favor usingliquid coal if it can be made to emit less

carbon dioxide than oil.One conflict between energy

independence and reducing globalwarming lies in coal. It's cheap andplentiful in the USA, but the leadingsource of carbon emissions. Half of U.S.electricity comes from coal-fired powerplants, and almost 30% of carbonemissions.

For those who want to reduce theUSA's dependence on imported oil, "coal

is just fine," says Judi Greenwald of thePew Center for Climate Change. "It's just

really bad for the climate."A solution, a process called "carbon

sequestration," in which carbonemissions are captured and pumpedunderground, isn't yet fully developed forpower plants, Greenwald says.

For that reason, Democrats includingEdwards and New Mexico Gov. BillRichardson would ban new coal-firedpower plants until they are able tocapture carbon dioxide emissions.


7/15

By Adam Shell and Matt KrantzUSA TODAY

Droughts. Hurricanes. Risingtemperatures. Melting glaciers. In aworld abuzz with talk about globalwarming, climate change is elbowingaside tech and biotech as the majorinvestment theme of the future.

Wall Street's savviest analysts aredevising ways to cash in on crazy

weather, just as they did in response tothe profound changes brought on bythe dawn of the digital age,globalization and the graying of America.

Discussions about what interest ratesmean for stocks are giving way tochatter about what a 1-degree riseeach year in temperature would do toprofits at businesses ranging fromcarmakers to solar companies.

Global warming has emerged as a

major market-moving force thatrepresents a generational shift likely toinfluence how people invest fordecades. The world's biggest financialservices firms are investing massiveamounts of time and brainpowertrying to pinpoint what stocks andsectors will benefit and be hurt bychanges in Earth's weather patterns.

"We are approaching a tipping pointwhen it comes to climate change," saysEdward Kerschner, a strategist atCitigroup.

Kerschner should know. He spentnine months researching "ClimaticConsequences," a 120-page report thatzeroes in on 74 companies in 18countries well-positioned to profitfrom changing weather patterns. "Theinterest in this report isunprecedented," says Kerschner. Hesays presentations to clients arebooked through the fall.

Page 7

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS MONEY SECTION ON FEBRUARY 27, 2007


Climate issues change

the economic landscape

By Suzy Parker, USA TODAY


8/15

Page 8



Similarly, UBS released a 97-page tome,"Climate Change: Beyond Whether." AndLehman Bros., with input from analystsin London and Tokyo, this monthpublished a 143-page paper, "TheBusiness of Climate Change." The well-being of the planet, the report concludes,has gone from a "fringe concern" of scientists and activists to a "central topic"for CEOs and investors.

"Global warming is likely to prove (tobe) one of those tectonic forces that like globalization or the aging of populations gradually but powerfullychanges the economic landscape," writes John Llewellyn, senior economic policyadviser at Lehman.

And California's Calpers, the nation'slargest public pension plan andconsidered a trendsetter among giantmoney managers, is committing $800million to invest in clean technology inemerging markets of Eastern Europe,Latin America and Asia.

Earlier this month, the United Nations'Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) concluded that it wasmore than 90% likely that human activityis causing global warming. Former vicepresident Al Gore came to a similarconclusion in his film, An InconvenientTruth, which Sunday won the AcademyAward for best documentary feature.

The IPCC says temperatures around theglobe could rise 2 to 12 degreesFahrenheit by 2100. Likely result: moreintense heat waves, more powerfultropical storms and a rise in sea levelsthat could swamp low-lying cities.

From an investors' standpoint, itdoesn't matter if people believe globalwarming is real or if greenhouse gasesare to blame, Kerschner says. What doesmatter is if consumers, regulators,governments and corporations "react tothe perceived threat." That is whatcreates investment opportunities andrisks, he says.

So here is what Wall Street's cool,

calculating minds say are some potentialwinners and losers from increasinglyvolatile weather.

Agricultu re. Ethanol, which is mademainly from corn, has been the talk of the farm since President Bush pushed forgreater ethanol use in his January Stateof the Union address.

The biggest ethanol producers, ArcherDaniels Midland, Aventine RenewableEnergy, Pacific Ethanol and VeraSun,seem obvious places for investors. Theproblem is, investments that are obviousrarely pan out. Ethanol plays, at least inthe short run, have been no exception.These stocks have all tumbled as cornprices have soared, making the main rawingredient used to make ethanolprohibitively pricey.

Corn, as a feed for ethanol, is limited,says Michael Hoover, managing directorat U.S. Trust. If ethanol were to providejust 10% of the nation's automotive fuelneeds, it would consume 35% of thenation's corn crop. And 25% of all foodprices are affected by corn prices, hesays: "You've got a food-vs.-fuel issue."

But that doesn't mean there's nomoney to be made on the farm. Thereare high hopes about cellulosic ethanol,which is made from farm leftoversranging from grasses to empty cornhusks and beets. The trouble is, it takesmore energy to extract starches fromthis "biomass" than it produces.Companies such as Diversa are workingon developing enzymes that could be acheap way to extract parts from biomassto create fuel.

Cashing in on the food boom requiresthinking more creatively. For one thing,as in most gold rushes, the companiesselling the picks and axes often cash in.That's why Kerschner thinks tractor-maker John Deere could benefit asfarmers look to handle bigger crops moreefficiently. Citing strong demand fortractors because of rising corn prices,Deere issued a bullish outlook for 2007,and analysts say the ethanol boom is just

getting started. Similarly, Monsanto isworking on crops that are more resistantto drought.

Alternative ener gy. Windmills. Fuelcells. Solar panels. Those global warmingplays pop into most investors' minds.There's no shortage of companiesworking on these technologies. EnergyConversion Devices and SunPower, forexample, are developing types of cleansolar panels with the hope of rivaling oiland coal, deemed "dirty" by scientists.

Don't count on making big-time dough,says Robert Wilder, CEO of WilderShares,a company that creates stock indexesthat track eco-friendly companies. Hesays the technology is too immature.

Wilder is skeptical about how soonthese technologies will make meaningfulcontributions. Solar, for instance,provides only one-tenth of a percent of the world's energy. Even if productionwere ramped up tenfold, it wouldprovide 1% of current demand.

Alternative energy plays, he believes,are not the best route to profits. Heprefers technology that makes dirtyenergy sources, such as coal and oil,cleaner. Fuel Tech, for example, makesdevices that help factories reduce thedangerous carbon spewed out of smokestacks. "Ironically, peopleinterested in benefiting from climatechange should look at the really dirtystuff, not the clean stuff," Wilder says.

Another potential play: nuclear powergenerators. While disposing of nuclearwaste is problematic, the actualgeneration of nuclear energy is clean and

doesn't produce carbon, he says. FPLGroup is a play on both nuclear andalternative energy because it producesnuclear power in addition to being thenation's biggest producer of wind power,Wilder says.

Automotive. Seems like people arepouring just about anything into theirgas tanks. There's ethanol, hydrogen,clean diesel and biodiesel. Each hold


9/15

Page 9



promise and any could be part of thesolution, says Ron Cogan, editor andpublisher of Green Car Journal.

Cogan lists hybrid technology as acan't-miss investment. Hybrid cars arepowered by an intelligent system thatknows when to run on liquid fuel andwhen to switch to electricity. Hybridtechnology works with all the fuels tomake them more efficient. Toyota,Honda, General Motors and Ford are theleaders, in that order, he says.

Another way to profit is to invest incompanies that make the parts used tobuild hybrid vehicles. InternationalRectifier, for instance, makes many of thecomponents that end up in hybridsmade by General Motors and Ford.Energy Conversion makes the batteries.

Financial ser vices. One potentialbeneficiary, analysts say, is the ChicagoMercantile Exchange (CME), a futuresexchange with an already-broadweather-related product lineup andplans to create markets. Last year, theCME traded 797,508 weather contractsvalued at $21 billion, up nearly tenfoldfrom $2.2 billion in 2004. Those optionsand futures enable insurance, energy andutility companies to hedge potentiallosses related to weather. Similarly, theCME recently launched "hurricanecontracts" that enable insurers to transferrisk to financial markets. "Companies arebecoming increasingly aware thatclimate is closely tied to profits," saysFelix Carabello, CME's director of alternative investment products."Investors are always looking for newasset classes" to diversify portfolios.

Stock investors seeking broad exposureto "green" investments could considermutual funds offered by Domini SocialInvestments. All Domini holdingspromote "the enrichment of our naturalenvironment."

Infrastr uctu re. While the Earth maybe choking on contaminants, the world'sdemand for energy is only accelerating as

economies in places such as China andIndia enjoy growth spurts. And that'swhy heavy construction and engineeringcompanies that build power plants willbe busy, U.S. Trust's Hoover says.

But the enlightened ones that buildecologically sensitive plants will stealmarket share. Case in point: McDermottInternational. It builds and designseverything from coal-fired boilers topower-generation systems in 90countries and nuclear steam generators.

The company is finding ways to makethese plants more efficient and cleaner.One technology, clean coal, puts devicesin smokestacks that pull the carbon outof the exhaust and plow it back into thesoil. "It's about taking the harmful thingsout of the stack," Hoover says.

Real estate. In a post-HurricaneKatrina world, many folks may rethinktheir dream of buying or remaining incoastal homes with coveted water views,David Lereah, chief economist at theNational Association of Realtors, writes inhis upcoming book, All Real Estate IsLocal. Lereah cites global warming as a"megatrend" and notes that people havean "increasing aversion to locations onthe water" and are avoiding "severe-weather-prone" areas.

He predicts households will "movefrom oceanfront properties to homesseveral miles away from the water."Many folks, he notes, are fleeing Floridain favor of the Smokey Mountain region,which includes Georgia, Tennessee andwestern North Carolina. "They feel moresecure in the mountains," says Lereah.

Red Lyons, a Georgia Realtor, confirmsa stream of buyers, many from Florida,are moving to the mountain region: "It'swithout a doubt weather-related."Skyrocketing insurance premiums arealso affecting property values. "Higherpremiums come directly out of theasking price," says Dean Baker, co-director at the Center for Economic andPolicy Research.

Technology . Small parts and

components that go into everything fromwashers and dryers to fighter jets andelevators could play a gigantic factor incurbing energy use. Technology thatexists right now could reduce the world'spower use by 30% overnight, says AlexLidow, CEO of advanced control makerInternational Rectifier. About 11% of thesavings could be achieved with efficientelectric motors inside washing machines,conveyor belts and other motors that usehalf the energy of older technology,Lidow says. Another 11% could be savedin transportation uses including hybrids.The last 8% can be saved with energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs.

Making devices that go into bulbs,hybrid cars and electric motors is payingoff for International Rectifier. It gets athird of its business, which is growing atan annual 25% clip, from such energy-saving devices. Those businesses focusedon energy efficiency are also thecompany's most profitable.

Despite the forward-looking mind-setof Wall Street analysts, profiting fromclimate change is still in its infancy.Citigroup's Kerschner learned thatfirsthand at a recent me eting withwealthy clients in Florida, a state knownfor both its beautiful beaches and run-inswith deadly hurricanes.

Says Kerschner: "I asked them, 'Howmany of you are aware of globalwarming?' Virtually everyone raisedtheir hand. Next I asked, 'How many of you are concerned about globalwarming?' Most kept their hands up.Finally I asked, 'How many of you haveadjusted your investments due to climatechange?' Sheepishly, most put theirhands down."

At that moment, Kerschner says, heknew most investors hadn't even startedto think about how to profit fromchanges in the Earth's weather patterns.


10/15

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS LIFE SECTION MAY 3, 2007


Fixing climate costs carries big costsBy Dan VerganoUSA TODAY

Global warming's demands on humaningenuity, and pocketbooks, will takecenter stage Friday in the latestinternational report on climate change.

Whether humans bury greenhousegases, blunt them with new technologyor buy them off with tax incentives,banishing the emissions responsible forglobal warming will take quick action,experts conclude in advance of thereport.

The latest International Panel onClimate Change report, "Mitigation of Climate Change," examines fixes or"mitigation" in climate lingo to globalwarming, both technological and

economic. The report will underline theenvironmental and financial benefits of quick action to cut emissions, says reportco-author John Drexhage of Canada'sInternational Institute for SustainableDevelopment.

But fixes also come with costs exploredin the report. If governments, forexample, impose fees on carbon dioxideemissions, it would raise the price of electricity for businesses andhomeowners alike. For that reason, theUSA and China, major users of coal, have

objected to calls in the panel's draftreport for quick action on just such amove, says Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense, anenvironmental research and advocacyorganization.

Problematic visions of the futur e

In the first of two reports earlier this

year, the World MeteorologicalOrganization-sponsored panel, whichfeatures thousands of climate scientistsreviewing studies, included a bestestimate that average surfacetemperatures will rise roughly 3 to 7

degrees this century. In the secondreport, the panel concluded thatenvironmental impacts of warming werealready apparent in migrating species,earlier springtimes and sea-level rise. Thesummary warned of a future of increased droughts, floods and speciesextinctions.

"We have three choices: mitigation,

adaptation or suffering," says Harvard's John Holdren, co-chair of the NationalCommission on Energy Policy. "And weare already starting to do a little of eachone."

A summary of the third and latestreport's scientific chapters will bereleased in Bangkok after review bypolitical representatives of more than100 nations, including the United States.

The key debate in Bangkok, Drexhagesays, will center on a simple chart. Thechart shows ways that fast economicmoves worldwide, both in technology

Report: Environment,economy will benefit

Mitigation' glossaryu Adaptation. Spending money to live with the consequences of climate

change. For example, building higher sea walls.

u Biofuels. Energy sources, such as ethanol, made from farmingbyproducts or crops.

u Cap-and-trade. A mandatory limit on carbon dioxide emissions thatprovides companies with incentives to reach that "cap" at the lowestpossible cost.

u Carbon sequestration. Underground storage of smokestack carbondioxide releases.

u Carbon sink. Anything that naturally reduces the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, such as a growing forest, is a sink.

u Carbon tax. Charging businesses and individuals a price to emit carbondioxide.

u Fuel switching. Moving from fuels that emit lots of carbon dioxide, suchas coal, to ones using less, such as nuclear or natural gas.

u Tragedy of the commons. Individuals overexploiting a resource, such asthe environment.

u Wedge strategy. Proposal to deploy any seven of 15 "wedges," existingtechnology fixes such as increased biofuel use or solar panels, which wouldbring greenhouse-gas emissions under control by 2050.

Sources: Pr inceton Environmental Institute, National Commission on Energy Policy, Carbon TaxCenter, Congressional Budget Office


11/15

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS LIFE SECTION MAY 3, 2007


and in imposing taxes or fees onemissions, would limit global warming.The key goals are keeping this century'saverage surface temperature rise roughlybelow 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, he adds.That's the point where many dangerousimpacts, such as declining grain yields inAfrica and the spread of tropical diseasestoward the poles, almost certainly loom.

The report evaluates mitigation from anumber of angles:

u Technologies ranging from betterbuilding design to nuclear power tocarbon sequestration, which shuntsgreenhouse gases from smokestacks intounderground rock formations.

u Future emission "scenarios," rangingfrom a "business as usual" world inwhich fossil fuel use continues unabatedto ones with strict limits on greenhousegases.

u Economic estimates fromcombinations of technologies, policiesand scenarios.

A 'monumental' task

"The truth is we are facing amonumental challenge in climatechange" tied to humanity's widespreadreliance on fossil fuels for energy, saysVicki Arroyo of the Pew Center on GlobalClimate Change. Combined with cementproduction, which requires heatingimmense amounts of limestone in aprocess that releases carbon dioxide, thatdependence adds more than 6 billionmetric tons of carbon to the atmosphereannually. The next climate report, Arroyosays, "will make clear there are costs of not acting, and there are costs of acting,to deal with it."

Money, not science, becomes the pointof debate over climate change with therelease of the mitigation report, saysreport co-author Anthony Patt of BostonUniversity.

On one side, Patt suggests, some willtake the position outlined in February byNewsweek pundit Robert Samuelsonthat significantly changing emissions"would be costly, uncertain and no doubtunpopular." Others will agree with last

year's Stern Review, an economic reviewof global warming's implications headedby the United Kingdom's chief economist, which argued that reducingcarbon dioxide emissions would lowereconomic growth modestly this century,while inaction would trigger globalrecession by 2050 because of theenvironmental effects of runawayclimate change.

"In my view, I think the report willmake plain that a lot of avenues exist" foraddressing climate change, Patt says.

No one technology or policy willaddress climate change by itself, Holdrensays. The energy commission he co-chairs, for example, released an Aprilreport calling for charging businesses asteadily rising price per ton on carbonemissions, combined with governmentincentives and technology developmentsto lower emissions. "People are startingto notice climates changing, see it in theirreal lives," he adds. "It's too late to stopglobal warming. The real question iswhether we can prevent catastrophic(man-made) interference with climate."


12/15

Page 12For more information, log on to www.usatodaycollege.com

AS SEEN IN USA TODAYS MONEY SECTION APRIL 19, 2007

By Paul DavidsonUSA TODAY

Any wiped-out surfer knows all toowell the back-breaking power of the

ocean's waves.Now, a fledgling industry is harnessing

the incessant motion of waves, tides andcurrents to create the world's newestform of renewable energy.

After sputtering along for nearly adecade, marine power appears poised tojoin the alternative energy juggernaut,though the technologies are still in theearly stages and have no guarantee of

success. Developers are using an array of contraptions -- from spinning turbines tobobbing buoys and undulating, snakelikecylinders -- to convert ocean or rivermovements into electricity.

The world's first commercial wavefarm is scheduled to launch this summeroff Portugal's coast. The first pilot tidalgenerator in the USA revved up in New

Catch a wave, throw a switchOffshore wave energy converters consist of four halfsubmerged linkedcylinders that ride ocean waves, and work in groups. The converters hingedjoints constantly flex up and down and left to right with each wave.

Waves generate power:

Cylinders are anchored to the sea floor by aseries of cables and moored in water 165 to 200feet deep. Cables allow the machine to swingand face oncoming waves headon.

11.5 ft. diameter

Anchor weights

Undergroundpower cable

2

1

Wave movement is convertedto electricity by a pump.(diagram below)

492 ft.

750 kilowatts of electr icity is sentby cable to shore and is enough topower about 500 homes.

3Source: OceanPower Delivery,Edinburgh, Scotland

360 feet

Football field,endzone to endzone

Marine power projects take advantage of waves, tides andcurrents to create energy used to generate electricity. Here is oneof the the technologies used to harness wave and tide power.

Source: Ocean Power Delivery Graphics by Robert W. Ahrens, USA TODAY

How pump worksWaves flex the convertershinged joints, forcing hy-draulic fluid into hydraulicmotors.Hydraulic motors turn,generating electricity.Electricity is transmittedto shore.

A)

B)

C)


13/15

Page 13



York City's East River last December. Andthe USA's first utility-scale wave project,

off Oregon beaches, won preliminaryfederal approval this year. All told, theFederal Energy Regulatory Commissionhas cleared 21 preliminary permits, andabout 35 are pending for wave and tidalprojects, largely off the West Coast andshores of Florida and New England.

Widespread use of marine energy isabout a decade away, says Roger Bedard,ocean energy leader for the ElectricPower Research Institute. In 50 years orso, he says, 20% of offshore wave energycould be tapped practically. That,

combined with tidal energy, couldconstitute 10% of all U.S. power sources.

Prototype wave-power machines havebeen around for a century, but interest inmarine energy picked up during the1970s oil embargo, only to recede whenoil prices fell. Driving the new push is ascramble for green energy, such as wind,solar and biomass, amid growingconcerns about global warming andexpected federal limits on fossil fuelplants' carbon dioxide emissions. Abouthalf the states require utilities to mix

traditional power with some alternativeenergy.

Marine energy has some distinctadvantages over its chief rival, windpower. Water is 850 times denser thanair, allowing tidal turbines, for instance,to produce about 40 times more powerthan windmills with similar gear. Thatwill ultimately mean smaller equipmentat lower costs, Bedard says.

And though tidal, wave and windstrengths all fluctuate, marine energy isfar more predictable than wind. Tidalflows bay or river currents that shiftseveral times daily based on the moon'sgravitational pull can be forecast yearsin advance. Satellite images foretell waveheights, which trace wind patterns, daysahead. That lets utilities use generatorsmore efficiently.

"If I know it's not always there, I canmake certain other plants are there to

back it up," says Hal LaFlash, Pacific Gas& Electric's renewable-energy director.

PG&E this year filed applications tostudy wave power off the Californiacoast, becoming the first major U.S.utility to do so. It's also considering a tidalproject in the strait under the GoldenGate Bridge.

Another selling point for marineenergy is its low profile. Water turbinesmoored to the seabed are hidden fromnearby communities. And while the

sometimes-mammoth machines thatharness wave energy bounce on the

ocean's surface, they are barely visibleseveral miles offshore. By contrast, someenvironmental groups have opposedwind farms as an eyesore.

Developers have wave power down toa science. In Oregon, for instance, waveheights average about 111/2 feet in thewinter, enough to generate sufficientelectricity per yard of wave-crest lengthto power about 38 homes. Waves, andpower potential, are higher on the WestCoast than the East Coast.

In December, Verdant Power placed awater turbine on the bed of New York'sEast River. Tidal flows of about 6 feet persecond spin the turbine blades, whichturn a shaft that powers a generator.Cables along the river floor connect thedevices to the power grid.

The 35-kilowatt turbine is generatingelectricity for a small grocery store andparking garage on nearby RooseveltIsland. Four more turbines are scheduledto be added this month. After an 18-month trial, Verdant hopes to install

some 200 turbines that will produce upto 10 megawatts of electricity, enough topower 7,500 homes, says Verdant Chief Financial Officer Kevin Lynch.

Ocean Renewable Power plans a muchlarger turbine array in the Gulf Stream off the Florida coast. Unlike tidal flows, anocean current is constant and can hostenough turbines to power a few hundredthousand homes, says company CEOChris Sauer.

Others are testing the harsher watersof the open seas. Early next year, OceanPower Technologies plans to install a 50-ton buoy in 150-foot-deep waters off thecoast of Reedsport, Ore. As waves knockthe buoy to and fro, hydraulic fluid ispumped through a cylinder, which drivesa generator. If the test is successful, 13buoys will be added by late 2008. Planscall for an array of some 300 eventually,generating electricity to power nearly40,000 homes.

Powered by water

Source: The companies By Robert W. Ahrens, USA TODAY

Other electricityproducing devices that use the energyof currents or waves:PowerBuoy

What it is: A floating buoyike structure withan onboard electrical generator and acomputer that monitors wave severity andcontrols electricity output.How it works: A pistonlike device at thebuoys bottom rises and falls with oceanwaves. The pistons movement drives agenerator that produces electr icity, whichis sent by cable to shore.Power generation: 40 kilowatts, enough topower 31 homes; larger units are planned.Placement: Designed for mooring in water100 to 200 feet deep, 1 to 5 miles offshore.Deployed: Tests in Atlantic City; Oahu,Hawaii; Santona, Spain; Reedsport, Ore.Company: Ocean Power Technologies,Pennington, N.J.

Underwater turbine What it is: Underwater windmill that usescurrents to produce electricity.How it works: Flowing water rotates theturbine blades, which turn the generatorthat produces electricity, which is cabled toshore. The turbine can swivel to takeadvantage of incoming/outgoing tides. Bladesrotate about 32 times per minute.Power generation: 35 kilowatts; A 10megawatt field would power approximately7,600 homes 1.Deployed: One unit tested in New YorksEast River, near Roosevelt Island.Company: Verdant Power, New York, N.Y.

Wave Dragon

What it is: An offshore floating platform with anovertopping-type energy converter.How it works: Ocean waves are channeled over a barrierand into a reservoir. Water is released through outletswith turbines that spin and generate electricity, which issent by cable to shore.Power generation: Three models: 4, 7, and 11 megwattsDeployed: Platform to be tested off the coast of Walesthis year.Company: Wave Dragon, Copenhagen, Denmark

1 units are intended to work in fields, not as a stand-alone single unit.They are clustered together in tens or hundreds to form a field. Deeper orfaster water currents yield higher power generation per unit.


14/15

Page 14



"As a young guy in Australia, I did a lotof surfing, and you get used to the

mechanical force in the waves that tossyou around, and you realize there's anenormous amount of energy out there,"says CEO George Taylor.

Portugal pr oject

Ocean Power Delivery of Scotland hastested a much larger device in theOrkney Islands. Its 380-foot-long "seasnake" contains seven cylinders linked byhinges that undulate with the waves'motions, tripping hydraulic pumps thatturn motors. It plans to install three

machines, at about $13.5 million, thissummer near northern Portugal, andeventually an array of 30 to light 15,000Portuguese homes. PG&E plans toconsider the device for California.

Unlike wind power, which must bezapped from states such as Wyomingand Kansas to larger cities, cloggingtransmission lines and losing energyalong the way, marine energy farms canbe near coastal population centers.

"Because of its location, it will be

relatively easy to integrate into oursystem," says Kevin Watkins, vicepresident of the Pacific NorthwestGenerating Cooperative, which hasagreed to buy power from Ocean PowerTechnologies.

Europe is further ahead than the USA.It's testing a variety of prototypes,

including a "wave dragon" that scoopswater into a basin, then releases it to turn

turbines. Even big players are jumping in.General Electric has taken a small stakein Ocean Power Delivery.

"We've done our due diligence, and wethink this has promise," says KevinWalsh, who heads renewable energy forGE Energy Financial Services.

Yet, marine energy also faces choppywaters. Projects cost about 13 cents to 35

cents per kilowatt hour of electricity, at least twice the

cost of wind. Mass

production, Bedard says,eventually should drivedown costs below wind.

"It's about where windwas 25 years ago,"

Bedard says, adding thatwater turbines will develop

more quickly, having borrowedfrom the advances of windmills.

Regulatory obs tacles

Equipment has yet to be tested for long

periods in punishing surroundings, saysanalyst Brandon Owens of CambridgeEnergy Research Associates. OceanPower Technologies had to suspend atrial in Hawaii to install more durableshock absorbers. The company, which ispreparing its initial public offering of stock, lost $7.1 million on $1.7 million inrevenue last year, according to a filing

with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

"It's a harsh environment, and thesethings are difficult to build and maintain,"Owens says.

There are also regulatory hurdles. Ittook Verdant Power four years to getapprovals for its New York pilot programfrom agencies such as FERC, the CoastGuard and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Getting a commercial licensetakes eight years. Verdant must spendmore than $2 million on sonar gear tostudy the turbines' effect on fish. Lynch

says there is none because the bladesrotate at just 32 revolutions per minute.PG&E plans to study the effect of wavedevices on kelp farming, crabbing, evensurfing. The machines do rob energyfrom waves, but the effect on waveheights is minuscule, Bedard says.

The Ocean Renewable EnergyCoalition's Sam O'Neill says agencies areunfairly subjecting marine energy to thesame scrutiny as hydroelectric dams.

A bill to be introduced by Rep. Jay

Inslee, D-Wash., would streamlineapprovals, earmark $50 million a year formarine energy research, and provide thesame tax credits as other renewables."We have to give them a level playingfield," he says. "This is the mostconcentrated energy on the planet."


15/15

Page 15For more information, log on to www.usatodaycollege.com

1. Using current articles from USA TODAY, compose anupdate on the International Panel on Climate ChangeReport article and current efforts by countries to combatglobal climate change since the release of the report. In your update include your evaluation of the response fromthe international community thus far.

2. Find current articles in USA TODAY to learn more about what individuals are doing to combat global warming.Make a list of these efforts and add to it by surveying people in your own community. Do you feel these efforts areadequate or not? Prepare a presentation to share with the class that includes your findings and opinion.

3. Do you believe global warming poses an imminent global environmental threat? What changes do you foresee inthe next 50 years if nothing is done to limit the levels of carbon dioxide emissions? Use current issues of USATODAY to support your stance and list facts to back your opinion. As a class activity, divide into two opposing sidesand debate the issue. Alternatively, debate the issue with a partner and report your findings to the class.

1. Make a list of the approaches being taken by US cities tofight global warming. Find current articles in USATODAY that describe additional initiatives and add them

to the list. Choose one of the initiatives from your list and compose a letter to your citys or towns planningcommission explaining why it should be adopted.

2. Make a two-column chart with one column labeled Pros and one Cons. Then list the forms of renewable energyand fuels described throughout the case study, filling in the pros and cons associated with implementing each one.When you are done, place a check mark next to those you feel are most viable and share your ideas with a partner.

3. As reported in the case study, energy audits, while still relatively new, are becoming more and more popular as home-owners look for ways to reduce their utility bills and also reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Create a chart to show thecosts and savings of the various energy audit recommendations listed in the article and rank them in order of what

you think are most beneficial to least.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

CRITICAL INQUIRY

v The Inter governmental Panel on Climate C hange (IPCC)www.ipcc.ch

v The Leadership in Energ y and Environmental Designwww.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19

v The U.S. Conference of Mayors C limate Protec tion Pagewww.usmayors.org/climateprotection

v EPA Ener gy Star Programwww.energystar.gov

v The Ocean Renewable Ener gy Coali tion (OREC)www.oceanrenewable.com

Additional Resources

Documents

USA TODAY Collegiate Case Study: Climate Change