The deal being discussed in Denmark right now, in the name of climate change, is actually a framework for truth in advertising on a global economic scale. Think FASB on steroids.
For example, we spend about three bucks for a gallon of gasoline in the US. In fact, we spend about ten, because of the cost of defending oil around the globe (recall that even Alan Greenspan was among the many government officials who have concluded that the trillion dollar Iraq war was entirely about oil); healthcare costs directly attributable to diseases from petroleum pollution; tax breaks; and other direct benefits bestowed on the oil industry. We can debate whether a fundamental commodity like transportation fuel should be subsidized to help commerce in general, but we cannot escape the fact that we are doing so today. The extra seven bucks a gallon for gasoline doesn’t include the value of lost productivity for a worker with asthma or the cost of repairing New Orleans (a disaster that was, at least in part, exacerbated by climate change).
By contrast, climate negotiators favor a system where either a carbon tax or cap-and-trade market system would have businesses and consumers pay the full cost of energy, technology, and consumption of scarce natural resources. Some states in the northeast have already added that cost to electricity and have earned billions of dollars that they can now use to pay for the externalities, like higher costs for health care or crumbling coastal barriers. If the world moves to this more candid accounting, what else will cost more - - or less - - in such a zero sum game? Two things that will go in very opposite directions, as a carbon price is added to goods and services, are overnight packages and books. Jet and diesel fuel (commodities that power cargo planes and delivery vans) take more energy to make than gasoline, and, while commuters have choices when gas prices spike, package businesses have no alternatives when it absolutely/positively has to be there overnight. Supply and demand, as the economy rebounds (especially in China), will also push the price of the fuels of commerce higher/faster. That will hurt FedEx, UPS, DHL, and even the humble Greyhound bus line.
By contrast, books will get cheaper. The carbon price imposed on deforestation (paper), printing processes, and shipping will drive the price of traditional books high enough to get us to read books on devices we already have - - laptops, iPhones, and Kindles. Electronic publishing and delivery of books is much cheaper than printed versions. Beneficiaries will include the obvious Apple, Amazon, Sony, and Google (which has already brought the cost of many classic books down to zero) and exciting new companies like iRex Technologies (spinoff of Phillips that sells the technology for e-book devices to numerous manufacturers).
Some policymakers favor taxing carbon, but reducing taxes on businesses or workers by an equal amount. That works today in England, where higher gas taxes are offset by lower income taxes. To be sure, income taxes in the UK are still hefty, but people get more in services for their money, such as free health care. Without the tax on petrol, those income taxes would be higher still or services would have to be cut. Sounds like the debate in Washington, eh?
However it shakes out in Copenhagen this month, the zero sum game is worth playing to calibrate our economy to new realities. What trade offs would you make?
New research from Cairo shows that rats become more belligerent when exposed to gasoline fumes and tailpipe pollution. If the same thing happens to humans, that might explain why the guy in the Escalade was waving his Smith & Wesson on the freeway in L.A. the other night, but it may also highlight the co-benefits of a low-carbon economy.
While all of us probably feel like trapped rats from time to time, a more relevant recent study, published in the British medical journal Lancet, reports that cutting carbon emissions could save human lives. For example, using cleaner cars in London, England (like those now mandated by California law) would save 160 total person-years of life per million residents every year. In Delhi, India, such a switch would save nearly 1,700 total person-years of life per million people each year, largely because of reduced lung disease, heat stress, and related heart problems.
As the focus in Copenhagen next week turns towards how to pay for cutting the carbon, it may be useful to be honest about the real cost of business-as-usual. These health studies certainly show that we’re already paying for the cost of burning fossil fuels, but not all of those costs are included in the price at the pump or on the electric meter.
Among those who might benefit from exposing those hidden costs is the National Railway Equipment Company. National has begun to sell their “N-ViroMotive” locomotives that are to railroads what the Prius is to highways. Using sophisticated generator technology and controls, these green engines cut pollution up to 90% and fuel use by as much as 70%. Put another way, business-as-usual costs shippers 70% more in fuel bills and costs taxpayers 90% more in pollution-related health and climate change costs.
An even bigger winner may be General Atomics, a defense contractor that is demonstrating an electric maglev freight carrier that could soon replace trains in the busy ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach - - where 40% of all goods imported into the US pass through - - speeding shipping containers out of ports, while reducing traffic congestion and air/carbon pollution on local highways. Transrapid, in partnership with Siemens and Thyssen Krupp, is doing similar cargo moving demos in Germany and China.
When President Obama and the other climate conference participants in Copenhagen next week ask “how do we pay for decarbonizing the global economy”, the better question should be “how can we afford to keep paying the true fossil-fueled price of continued pollution?” So here’s hoping they get busy and cut the carbon, reduce the harmful pollution, save money - - and let both people and rats breathe easier.
Tens of thousands of modern-day crusaders, charlatans, Nobel laureates, CEOs, quick-buck artists, earnest politicians, and assorted movie extras of every conceivable socio-political-ethnic-economic background will descend on Copenhagen for the next three weeks to participate in an orgy of carbon-bashing and flag-waving. The goal will be to agree on a blueprint - - not quite the precise Earth owner’s manual that some had hoped for, but at least a quick-start guide - - for reducing greenhouse gas emissions fast enough so that the world avoids the most expensive and unpredictable consequences of climate change.
As the Danes clean up the mess when the party’s over on December 18th, the question becomes “what does this all mean on December 19th and beyond?” Starting on that day, as the heavy lifting begins for global negotiators who will be filling in the details of that blueprint, we will be inundated with advice, predictions, and hand-wringing on all sides. Here’s a clip-and-save cheat sheet, suitable for framing or taping to your refrigerator, that will save you time - - and money - - as you try to crack the “Carbon Code” for yourself, your business, and your investments:
• December 2009: Conference of the Parties #15 (“COP15”) in Copenhagen. “Parties” to the deals struck so far by the United Nations’ climate club will meet to create a political framework that punts the details of how to reduce carbon (and how fast) to negotiators who will hammer this out over the next 12 months. President Obama will speak to the party of Parties December 9th.
• January 2010: California starts “early action” regulations/incentives to pick the low-hanging carbon fruit and get some quick reductions. Other states and the feds will follow this, so pay attention even if you’re not in the Golden State (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/ccea.htm)
• April 2010: Earth Day signing of a US climate bill. The bill will set modest targets for reducing carbon and will authorize the creation of a nationwide carbon cap-and-trade market. To get the votes, the bill will be full of pork for nuclear, “clean coal”, renewables, and more farm biofuel subsidies. Most significantly, the bill will allow states, like California, to set more stringent limits and use both regulation and carbon markets to accomplish their goals.
• June 2010: Dozens of states that have developed “climate action plans” begin to impose limits on carbon through energy efficiency measures, renewable energy mandates, and participation in a regional cap-and-trade program. Although each measure and each state’s program will roll out on various timelines, you should know what’s happening in states where you do business by this time. Keep track of it all in real time at: http://www.seventhgenerationadvisors.org/index.php?option=com_content&vi...
• Fall 2010: Expect Walmart to announce its requirements for sustainability labels on products, including carbon footprints. If you are part of the Walmart supply chain - - and what company is not? - - hire staff or a consultant to start measuring, whether or not you are required to do so by USEPA, Chinese authorities, or anyone else.
• December 2010: COP 16 in Mexico City. World leaders adopt the deal that will replace the Kyoto Protocol. All this means is that the UN is organizing each nation’s response to climate change under one roof, but the regulations and low-carbon economic opportunities that matter will still be found in your own backyard.
• January 2011: California adopts final rules and regulations for its cap-and-trade system (working with a dozen other western states and Canadian provinces) for launch in 2012.
• March 2011: US facilities must report 2010 carbon emissions to USEPA (and annually thereafter).
• 2012: Walmart has a carbon footprint label on every product it sells; myriad carbon-busting rules go into effect in states; regional carbon cap-and-trade markets expand in the US. Carbon now has a price globally.
These are just a few of the key dates to add to your carbon calendar, but if you pay attention to these milestones, everything else that comes from government or commerce will make sense. And if you happen to be in Denmark in December, don’t be surprised when the bar conversation turns from “what’s your sign?” to “what’s your carbon footprint?”
California is at it again. State regulators just set energy efficiency standards for new TVs, mostly the big flat panel models that gulp kilowatts. As a result, consumers will save about $8 billion in the next decade in the form of lower electricity bills and carbon pollution will drop equal to removing 100,000 cars from the road. As my dad used to say, “a penny saved is a penny earned” - - so why doesn’t the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) want you to get your share of that saved carbon or those 800,000,000,000 pennies?
The CEA fears that TV makers won’t be able to add more bells and whistles to future products, because such features might draw too much additional power. Given that I can already download every show, movie, and video game ever made - - and control my entertainment center without leaving the couch - - what else would next generation TVs do for me? Make and deliver the popcorn?
In fact, if past is prologue, this new regulation will drive innovation and exciting new technologies that can be adapted into other products. Past California energy efficiency mandates have not only made Californians 40% more energy and carbon efficient than average Americans, they have also inspired the invention of things like laser printing, a process that is now used to “print” layers of materials onto thin film for making new transparent solar panels.
In response to California energy efficiency mandates that were first promulgated in the 1970s, companies like Hewlett-Packard designed the inkjet printer and within a decade were essentially printing money by selling the new technology to both businesses and consumers. After seeing them in action, Nobel Prize winning chemist Alan Heeger figured out that you could use the same process to combine thin layers of compounds that together create electricity when exposed to light. Now companies like Konarka and Energy Conversion Devices (NASDAQ: ENER) are printing their money on rooftops - - laminating solar panels, the thickness of human hair, onto products like roof tiles and windows, turning entire buildings into solar energy power plants.
And this time, the energy misers in the Golden State are not alone in saving those pennies - - the new TV regulations were supported by California’s investor owned utilities (IOUs), including PG&E, Sempra, and Edison International, because it’s good for their bottom lines. To reduce pollution and carbon, the state Public Utility Commission has long rewarded utilities for investing in energy efficiency. Watch now for those IOUs to offer money to consumers to scrap old inefficient TVs (just as they now pay to scrap your old refrigerator or clothes dryer), because it reduces their need to build new power plants and actually increases their profits. They will likely earn billions more in valuable carbon credits when the western carbon market is launched in 2012 from those investments.
Yes, as Senator Dirksen used to say, “a billion here and a billion there and suddenly you’re talking real money.” If he were alive today, he’d be reminding us of that maxim - - beamed into our living rooms on a new energy and carbon efficient TV.
You might not hear that exact question any time soon, but don’t be surprised if companies start shifting carbon risk from their balance sheets to someone else’s, using the time-honored marketplace tool of insurance. And when that happens, expect the price of products to reflect the new reality.
China, India, and other emerging economies argue that we became prosperous using up the atmosphere and must now bear a disproportionate share of the burden to fix the problem, at least in the first few years of any new global deal. One proposal floating around before the global climate talks in Copenhagen next month is for developed countries, like the US and EU, to buy insurance for climate change-related impacts that are likely to occur to developing nations. Flood insurance for low-lying areas of Indonesia, for example. That might be a way, some argue, to deal with the rich/poor nation divide that threatens to undermine any new global deal.
Insurance premiums may be cheaper than other forms of “compensation” or aid, but like any cost borne by governments or companies, it will be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. There is also a growing movement to be more transparent about such costs, adding them as surcharges. California is flirting with car insurance paid at the gas pump, so you’re actually paying based on how much of highway system you use - - and how much carbon you pump into the air - - and are reminded each time you fill up. A carbon insurance premium could easily be included in such a gas pump surcharge so drivers pay the true cost of operating their vehicles in terms of all relevant risks, including their fair share of creating both fender benders and climate change collisions.
Allstate, State Farm, and Progressive are considering the idea and already lower rates for customers who drive less than average annual mileage. Because such discounts today are based on the honor system, doing real carbon or mileage-based insurance would require technology on the car to verify the driver’s habits. That’s where innovative companies like MileMeter (at milemeter.com) come in, a company already doing this in Texas. Research by the Brookings Institution concluded that such verified pay-as-you-go insurance would incentivize motorists to combine shopping trips and otherwise cut back on fuel consumption, saving about $270 a year per car and cutting oil consumption by 4%.
Indeed there are already profits being made by insurance companies in the carbon field. Chartis Insurance and AIG both provide insurance on carbon offset projects, essentially guaranteeing that the carbon-reducing project is completed so the buyer of offset credits will actually get the benefits purchased. As the carbon market heads towards the trillion-dollar range in the next five or 6 years, insuring that marketplace will also rapidly increase in value.
Swiss Re has been insuring agricultural crops against potential losses from climate change-related impacts like drought and new pest infestations. Knowing the science behind the climate change predictions, this is clearly another valuable growth area for the insurance industry.
Although I don’t know if any company has insured a coffee crop against climate change risks just yet, given the high value of the morning brew you can bet that this commodity will soon have carbon insurance percolating around somewhere. Which should put your mind at ease about always being able to get your daily dose of caffeine - - even if that latte costs a few pennies more for the insurance.
As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.
It’s a good thing that Congress is finally looking at the economics of climate change and carbon reductions, because the overwhelming amount of data - - buttressed by common sense - - shows that reducing carbon will be very good for our economy overall. One of the biggest sources of carbon reductions will be in the area of energy efficiency and that doest cost money, it saves money. Walmart, for example, said that if each of their 100 million customers bought just one compact florescent light bulb to replace an incandescent bulb, those consumers would save over $3 billion in electricity costs over the life of the bulbs (after deducting the higher up-front cost of the new bulbs).
Renewable energy, another carbon-reducing technology, creates jobs in the US and saves money too. Alan Horn, President and CEO of Warner Brothers, told me recently that his studio is covering large soundstages with enough solar to provide up to 10% of their massive energy needs. After a 7 to 10 year payback, they will get that amount of their electricity free for decades to come. Moreover, that multi-million dollar project put people to work in Burbank, California, not China or India, and didn’t take away a single job from anyone.
It’s misleading when some Senators focus on trivial or entirely bogus costs, but especially troubling when their carbon smokescreen obscures a bigger truth - - inaction will cost far more than tackling the problem. No better example of the mammoth costs associated with denial can be found along our coastlines.
As discussed at a the recent H209 Water Forum in New York, cities around the world are building barriers to protect against rising sea level and increased storm activity that is related to the impacts of climate change and it costs real money - - Venice: $7 billion; London: $8 billion; New Orleans: $700 million; the California coast: $14 billion, plus $1.4 billion a year for maintenance.
In New York itself, $400 million was just spent to upgrade pumps that remove rising waters out of subways. Experts at the conference predicted billions more will be needed to protect telecommunications, power lines, and other NY infrastructure that sits below sea level. Even at the lowest end of the range of catastrophic climate impacts predicted, NY will suffer massive street flooding and property damage unless more protections are built. Further inaction on reducing carbon will only drive these costs higher.
“I'm sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won't find much consolation in green welfare programs," said Senator Inhofe at the hearing. Ironically, building this entire additional infrastructure to deal with rising waters will use a lot of cement, so Inhofe was aimed in the wrong direction again. In fact, companies like W.L. Gore make devices to scrub carbon and other pollution from cement kiln smokestacks and create lots of American jobs in the process (and valuable exports too!).
Given all of the obvious economic benefit of evolving to energy that is considerably more efficient/clean/domestic, one can only be left to wonder if Inhofe’s positions mean that Oklahoma just doesn’t like New York? Or California? Or Venice? Maybe the Senator is just jealous that his state doesn’t have a coastline, but unless he and his colleagues start making decisions based on real economic data, his state may also be left without a share of the 21st century industries that will power the globe and lead us out of the current recession.
California’s state budget gap was about $40 billion this year. New York’s some $50 billion. Every state in the Union is struggling with drastically lower revenues and higher costs for services of every kind, washing state capitals with red ink. At the polls next year, governors who are facing elections - - including Governor David Paterson of New York - - may find themselves politically drowned by such gargantuan deficits.
So, faced with closing schools, hospitals, fire stations, and kicking struggling families off of welfare roles, governors are turning instead, like the famous bank robber Willy Sutton, to wherever the money may be. In New York’s case, at least some of it is hidden in a carbon piggy bank.
Late last year, ten northeastern states started a cap-and-trade system covering carbon emissions from powerplants. Each facility must buy its initial “allowances” for whatever they emit from the state, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Each state decides how to spend this money, but generally they have committed it to energy efficiency programs.
That’s where Paterson took a bold gamble. He proposed using $90 million of the state’s $202 million in carbon allowance revenues this year to subsidize the state’s budget deficit. Many criticized the move, fearing that environmental and energy efficiency goals won’t be met and that other states might copy the move, making matters worse. That may also cost the Governor some “green” friends, hurting his chances at the polls next year.
But maybe he did New Yorkers - - and the rest of us - - a real favor. First of all, more than half the carbon money still goes to energy investments. For example, Paterson recently announced a buy-back program for inefficient old appliances. That will save lots of energy as people trade up for newer energy-efficient models, stimulating the economy at the same time, just as the “cash for clunkers” program helped car dealers.
Of course Paterson could have proposed higher taxes instead of raiding the carbon piggy bank. But is it a good idea to tax workers and businesses more, penalizing hard work, or is it better to essentially tax waste and thereby encourage conservation? Many have suggested this very idea as a way to deal with climate change - - tax carbon polluters, which raises the cost of electricity and gasoline - - but lower taxes on payrolls and businesses. Such a zero-sum “tax shift”, it is argued, would reward hard work and discourage wasteful use of energy, both worthy outcomes. In any case, it would force users of energy to pay the true cost of their supply - - a cost, measured in climate change impacts, that is borne today by everyone regardless of how much energy they use.
Climate activists’ immediate reaction to Paterson’s move was negative, but perhaps it’s worth another look. If governors everywhere knew there was carbon piggy bank in their state, we might soon see more support for carbon cap-and-trade systems and quickly earn bi-partisan support for tackling climate change. Given that Congress is stalled on climate legislation, this may be one of our best bets for an American contribution to a global deal in Copenhagen later this year. If that happens, we will have Governor Paterson to thank for being bold enough to get us started.
It’s not just the ads showing a baby-boomer couple sitting in matching bathtubs on a beach at sunset where you can find performance anxiety these days. Try looking in the hardware aisle and at the gas station.
Rather than ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs, for example, California lawmakers set an efficiency performance standard - - which was adopted by the feds - - so in 2012, you won’t be able to buy energy-wasting bulbs. That spurred Phillips to develop and market their “Halogena Energy Saver” incandescent bulb that is 30% more efficient than conventional versions. The performance standard approach - - instead of government picking winners and losers - - clearly worked for both environmentally minded policy makers and bottom-line minded businesses.
The stealth performance standard that will hit another part of daily life - - your car - - relates to gasoline and diesel fuel. California adopted a “low carbon fuels standard” that says the carbon content of fuels sold in the state must decline 10% by 2020. Fuel sellers can achieve that by slashing emissions from refineries ahead of other carbon regulations; by blending petroleum with lower carbon-content fuels like sustainable biofuels; by selling non-carbon fuels like hydrogen; or anything else that reduces the carbon content of the total portfolio of fuels sold.
Senator Barack Obama embraced making this a national standard almost two years ago and many lawmakers of both parties like this technology-neutral, competition-enhancing approach to reducing carbon. Chevron, Toyota, and several others also have endorsed this approach, because it allows them to find the cheapest ways to comply with the policy goal and perhaps to develop solutions they can market to others. Nothing like a good profit motive to accelerate public policy.
Of course this spells trouble for companies that are hoping to market fuels made from high carbon-footprint sources like the Canadian tar sands. Given that it takes up to four times as much energy to extract and refine that gunk into anything useful, it’s a sure bet the resulting products won’t find much of a market if fuel sellers are trying to lower the carbon content of their products. An online investor news service has a list of stocks that are exposed, at least in part, to this significant/growing liability - - may be a good list to keep handy of stocks to avoid:
Based on the successes of the performance standards approach so far, academics and policy makers around the world are looking for more ways to use them, instead of prescriptive bans or mandates. At least in some human endeavors, it seems performance anxiety can be a good thing.
A few weeks ago, USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that 10,000 facilities would soon have to measure and register their carbon emissions. Last week, she told a packed house at the Governors’ Global Climate Summit2 in Los Angeles that her agency will introduce rules requiring significant new sources of carbon emissions, like a new or remodeled fossil-fueled power plant, to pay for the right to pollute.
Clearly, these are salvos in the Obama administration’s campaign to use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases, rather than wait for Congress to figure out how to do it (last year, when I outlined for presidential candidate Obama how to do this, I sensed it appealed to the law professor in him, even though he was a member of Congress at the time!).
While the US Chamber of Commerce recoiled in horror at these announcements - - causing PG&E, Exelon, and PNM to cancel their memberships in protest over the Chamber’s “so last-century” position - - others saw opportunity. Among those who will create new jobs in a low-carbon economy are the oft-maligned “bean counters”, or in this case, the carbon counters.
While companies as different as Walmart, Dell, and Walt Disney embrace carbon footprint labels for products as diverse as sneakers, laptops, and movies, they hire in-house experts and outside contractors to decide how best to measure the carbon content and which standards to use. Leaders in the field include PE International, Natural Logic, and Clear Carbon. This is also a major new business development opportunity for engineering firms, currently struggling in the economic downturn, to create whole new areas of expertise and revenue streams. CH2M Hill and Ameresco are two early/major players in that space.
And in anticipation of more regulation and carbon-labeling, new standards and models are being developed around the world for how to measure things that don’t have a smokestack, driving even more business to this new class of carbon accountants. New Zealand’s Former Prime Minister Helen Clark told me how her country is trying to breed cows that “emit” less methane by engineering both the diet and the digestive system. An army of pocket-protectors is now chasing cows and sheep across the NZ landscape to measure the carbon in each belch and fart, demonstrating the broad scope this new profession will have. I guess that’s one way to stimulate a green economy!
Investors and companies should pay attention to the service industry that’s emerging to meet these massive new demands for information. A decade ago, health-conscious consumers forced manufacturers to list nutritional information on food packages. We’ll soon be able to make buying decisions based on carbon content too - - taming our waistlines and “waste lines” at the same time.
I had a dream about watching one of those high stakes poker games that you see on TV these days. There were bit players who you knew, from the few colored chips in front of them, would soon fold - - but the two “whales” at the table were Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. They each had so many chips on the table that you could barely see their cowboy shirts, but the purpose in their deadly stares could not be obscured, even by the dark black Ray Bans that shaded their eyes.
Obama wasted no time putting his ante smack in the middle of the green felt for all to see - - roll back greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% lower by 2050 (a statement made just 14 days after he was elected). Hu countered with a commitment to reduce energy consumption by 20%. Cards were dealt and the players tugged on their caps (Hu’s read “Made in China” and Obama’s proclaimed “Copenhagen”, an obscure reference to either the failed Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics or the upcoming climate talks).
The American Prez made the first bet - - adopting California’s greenhouse gas limits on tailpipes as the national standard. The crowd murmured as they realized this meant he was betting on executive power instead of Congress. The Chinese Prez countered with a commitment to replace 15% of dirty fossil fuels with clean energy, like wind and solar, by 2020. The crowd gasped audibly, realizing that this would double China’s current renewable energy supply.
Mr. Cool and Mr. Harmonious took and tossed cards, each betting bold plans to measure and register greenhouse gas sources; out-compete each other on a carbon market; and save more trees than anyone thought possible - - raising the stakes higher and higher, a pile of loot that made it hard for one to even see the other, let alone get a real read of their respective poker faces. Aides tugged at the sleeves of each man, whispering words of advice or caution, but the shrewd observer knew these competitors needed no guidance - - they were playing for keeps.
As often happens in dreams, reality and fantasy merged - - the closer I looked at the loot on the table, the more it resembled a blue, spinning globe. Were the Presidents playing for wealth, the future of a planet, or both?
I awoke with adrenaline pumping, the final result unknown, wondering if anyone else had distilled the words and deeds of these two world powerhouses into anything resembling my dream, or if most people had failed to see the high-stakes poker game that was going on in world capitals, UN speeches, and government announcements day by day. The media has largely failed to add up what’s going on in both countries already, which allows Hu and Obama to make these pledges, so how would average citizens or investors know?
Yes, carbon will soon have more than a penny-ante price, but if we play the game shrewdly at Copenhagen and beyond, this may be a game with many winners and a dream for a more sustainable, resilient economy come true.
