Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Who's Funding Global Warming?

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 5, 2007.


Find out which banks are part of the problem, and which are part of the solution, in the fight against global climate change.
020407story
Advertisement

Wearing hats shaped like smokestacks and carrying signs that said, "Coal Investments Cook the Climate," a group known as Billionaires for Coal raised awareness last week about the plans by TXU, a Dallas-based utility company, to build 11-new pulverized coal-fired power plants in Texas.

The activists delivered suitcases of coal, but the recipient of their gift was not TXU and they were a long way from Texas. Instead, their action took place in New York's financial district where they visited the headquarters of Merrill Lynch -- a company that is putting coal and profits above human health and climate change.

Merrill Lynch is one of three major financial institutions, along with Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, that have agreed to arrange the needed $11 billion to finance TXU's plants.

It is widely known among scientists and regulators that coal-fired power plants are the most polluting form of electricity and right now, the world needs every opportunity it can to move away from the production of more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Some say the impetus is on the government to regulate GHG emissions; others put the responsibility on utility companies. But organizations like Rainforest Action Network (RAN) believe that banks that fund polluting projects like TXU also need to be held accountable.

The recent action by Billionaires for Coal in New York begs the question: What is the role of the global finance industry when it comes to climate change? It also highlights the ripple effect of global warming -- more coal plants in Texas will be everyone's problem -- including Wall Street's.

Banking on dirty money

If TXU secures the necessary money and permits, their 11 plants will produce 78 million tons of CO2 emissions each year for the expected 50-year lifespan of the plants.

Let's put that number in perspective. According to Environmental Defense, TXU's projected output of 78 million tons of CO2 a year is more than entire countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal. It is also the equivalent of putting 10 million Cadillac Escalades on the road or cutting and burning all the trees in a section of the Amazon the size of over 9 million football fields -- larger than the state of California.

"This is the U.S. and its insanity at its very greatest. We are facing a climate crisis," said Brianna Cayo Cotter of RAN. "We are standing at the edge of a cliff and this is the sort of project that just pushes us over."

TXU seems to be striving to become known as the largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter in the U.S. With mounting political pressure in the United States and growing international action, what kinds of institutions want to be associated with them?

So far, the only three officially committed to the project are Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley, and they are known as "lead arrangers," in charge of helping TXU get the $11 billion in financing.

RAN has sent letters to 56 global banks -- across the United States, Canada, Europe, and even in Japan and Brazil -- urging banks to reject requests to finance the project.

In the Netherlands four banks were being approached for financing despite the fact that TXU's project will produce six times the pledged CO2 reductions of their country -- negating the efforts (six times over) of the Dutch people to limit their contributions to climate change.

According to Cotter, at least 18 banks have already responded that they have no interest in financing the plan, and not one has affirmed that they will. So far there are also three major banks on public record saying they are not on board -- Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of Montreal. Wachovia and Scotiabank are among those still on the fence.

Many banks make it their policy not to comment on clients and so have not responded. However, a little reading between the lines sometimes can provide a sense of their position.

The London-based HSBC became the world's first bank in 2005 to commit to becoming carbon neutral.

While they said the could not comment on TXU, they did say, "We regard climate change as the single largest environmental challenge facing the world this century and have undertaken a number of initiatives to ensure we play our role in combating it," wrote Michael Goeghegan, Group Chief Executive of HSBC.

HSBC reports that it is committed to complying with the Kyoto Protocol and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. It also has a Carbon Finance Strategy to assist in "a transition to financing low carbon and energy efficient projects," Goeghegan wrote. "We believe financial institutions will play an important role in the shift to cleaner energy and aspire to be among the leading financial institutions of a lower carbon economy."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: morgan stanley, merrill lynch, citigroup, banks, global finance, climate change, global warming, txu

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yes!
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 5, 2007 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans surdenly are worried about climate change, arent they:)?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes! Posted by: willymack
» RE: Yes! Posted by: Pau
Who'll stop the rain?
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 5, 2007 3:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Who's funding global warming" you ask? Oh sure, the usual scumbags are responsible, and of course they should face justice.

But does anyone honestly think a whole bottomless cesspool of scumbags aren't waiting in the wings to replace them?

All the glorious revolutions throughout time immemorial have brought us to precisely where we are right now -- and you STILL think the next one will do it?

The problem is deeper than that -- sixty five hundred million of us, that's our most basic problem. We wouldn't be in this catastrophe if there were a lot fewer of us. If we stop to think about that, it's painfully obvious.

There were warnings, but just about everyone ignored them. The most important question facing life on Earth right now is: By what order of magnitude is the human race overpopulated?

And it corrolary: When are we going to get serious about prioritizing ecologically-based birth control?

Our lame efforts to mitigate the human population explosion have been pathetically inadequate, and all the techno-fixes yet to be tried will prove to be also. Yes, they're necessary. But they're woefully insufficient.

Demand ecologically-based birth control, and don't let the bastards grind you down!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Other points Posted by: JohnF
Hey Ya'll
Posted by: Dboy on Feb 5, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What we need is some of that 'Clean-Burning' coal that I always hear about on the news; or is it on TV commercials, I don't recall. Anyway, it must exist cuz I keep hearing it talked about.

And that statement "The permitting process for TXU's project was fast-tracked by executive order of Gov. Perry who received sizable contributions from the coal industry, including TXU in his recent re-election bid" makes it sound as if huge contributions from the coal industry has something to do with this deal. I'm sure the contributions were made due to patriotism.

Freedom isn't free. You obviously have to pay for it, right? Might as well pay Rick Perry.

Dboy

(just a note for the slow-witted, this post is a snark).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fighting money with money Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Hey Ya'll Posted by: willymack
Cold Turkey is Not The Menu We Need
Posted by: edith on Feb 5, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
coal+carbon. duh. what is waiting in the wings in the next five years to generate as much electiricity as coal? All the alternate energy rhetoric is fine, and clearly we must go to non-carbon sources, but the enviros do a poor job of realistically proposing interim and transition strategies until alternatives can generaate the energy needed to have a growing economy at a standard of living that the American and other nations, growing(India and Thailand, for example) as well as advanced(EU) expect. The lack of alternatives if coal and petro are just cut off like that is depression(economic as well as mental) and instablity.

These banks should be part of an accelerated investment plan to develop alternatives that can support a major economy. Investments in coal per se may be necessary to get us through the transition, but we need to define and accept that a transition is necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Coal Will Still Burn Posted by: edith
» At least how about a diet? Posted by: moflard
» Plague on both Houses Posted by: edith
When Capitalism ate Democracy in America
Posted by: feduphoosier on Feb 5, 2007 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is the bastion of the mega-corporation. They live right here among us, making their global killing from their headquarters on our shores. So of course, we get to share their evil karma. Our corporate media keeps us in the dark about the price; the damage they cause around the world and here at home. It wasn't until recently - and probably with the help of the internet - that many Americans even realized how 'owned' we really are.

Corporate advertising on corporate media sing us all to sleep with patriotic songs intermixed with SUVs ("This is our country..." so buy this gas-guzzling truck;) portfolios, electronic toys and goodies made in China. God Bless America - and gimme that new logo t-shirt (made in India.)

These monster banks and corporations - based in America - abuse the hell out of the world, other nations, and yes, their fellow Americans; and still we shop from them, we work for them, allow them to infiltrate our government and now they make our laws. They are the greediest of the greedy in America; the richest of the rich, and they would throw America, the planet - everything - to the dogs for an extra buck. But we enable them. We allow them to hide behind the word 'capitalism' and endow the word with all the glory of 'democracy'. What ever happened to the word 'greedy?'

We bought into the capitalist dream (mistakenly believing it applied to all of us.) And perhaps, at one time, it did. No longer. Most Americans probably don't even know the difference between democracy and capitalism. Too bad, because by the time they find out, capitalism will have devoured democracy in America. There is a huge battle being waged right now, to rescue democracy from the hungry jaws of mega corporations.

The average American is now as much a hostage to King Corp as the rest of the world - although most of us still don't know it. Sure, we are complicit in the damage to the earth and other nations, and yes even to ourselves. I guess we must look terribly spoiled and stupid to the rest of the world. But most Americans appear to only now be figuring this out - now that their jobs are going overseas. The corporations they thought were as American as the rest of us, sold out and packed up shop, and moved to where the labor was cheaper. So now Americans are waking up... when they finally lose something in the bargain.

Not sure who dropped the ball in this country... the schools for not teaching the difference between democracy and capitalism.... or perhaps we were just hoodwinked by the corporate media and the lies of corporate advertising. Either way - suckers all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's something you can do
Posted by: Plexius on Feb 5, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many states now have utilities that allow you to purchase your electricity from "green" sources (solar, wind,biogas, etc.). In Florida, I can and do purchase 5kw hours a month of "green" electricity from an alternative source. The utility company sells 5 kw blocks of electricity from green sources. It is significantly more expensive and 1 block only pays for about 1 day a month of my electrical usage, but it's the best I can do right now. Down the road, I hope to buy more blocks or install photovoltaic cell sections as I can afford them. Check into your local utilities programs and check programs used elsewhere. YOU can make a difference simply by refusing to buy electricity from dirty sources!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's something you can do Posted by: MartianBachelor
fearless flower
Posted by: fearless flower on Feb 5, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no way 11 coal-burning power plants can go up even in an area as big as Texas and not affect air quality for all the people living near them. These cause major breathing problems for everyone within hundreds of miles, never mind what is added to the burden in the global atmosphere.
I lived in southern Alabama with four young children with too many power plants and oil refineries within a 20 mile radius. There were no air quality stations in place to measure the pollution. The local governments let the standards slide for these corpoarate giants and justified it because of the poverty level in the area. I think they counted on poor uneducated sick people not being able to understand or defend themselves against this assault. Respiratory illness was rampant around us; my four very healthy children became seriously ill after a year of living there, requiring hospitaliation and medicines which failed to control their asthma. When we realized it was pollution related we got out in a hurry. One week after leaving that area, the children were so much better they needed no medicine anymore.
When these companies say they are "going through the proper channels", translate that to mean they are either getting the laws changed or bribing the government to let them in. Thank you for letting us know which banks are helping them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now it's becoming clear - great article!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 5, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under the current situation, the sane policy would be to simply ban coal-fired power plants entirely - but the alignment of finance that put the Bush Administration in power represents the desperate efforts of fossil fuel banks and traders to keep a firm grip on the reins of global power, which they've held for almost a century.

Take the world's largest non-state coal company, Peabody Coal (NYSE: BTU). Their principle investors are the usual suspects:
WELLINGTON, MARSICO, Barclays Global Investors UK, VANGUARD GROUP, MERRILL LYNCH INVESTMENT, CAPITAL RESEARCH, FIDELITY, JANUS CAPITAL
Janus, for example, was the 2nd biggest holder of Enron (they're still here!) - and Barclays is the primary shareholder in Exxon, and Exxon is far larger than Peabody Coal. Merrill Lynch's holdings in coal explain their desire to finance new
coal-fired power plants.

Thus, it's becoming more and more clear that the primary obstacle to taking action on climate change and renewable energy is this massive entrenched financial system that is largely sustained by fossil fuel sales. Their tentacles reach into the media (The New York Times is still refusing to cover the American Enterprise Institute's offer to bribe scientists to attack the IPCC report - the Washington Post picked it up, however), and into a large public relations program involving a host of fossil fuel-funded think tanks and 'climate research centers' (reminiscent of the 'tobacco research centers'). They get their message out through control of the media, through lobbying politicians, and through use of the Internet (see edith's comment above for an example).

This also reveals the hypocritical stance of the Bush Administration and their Republican backers in Congress, who may give lip service to renewable energy and global warming concerns, but whose actions speak far louder - Bush spent his time as Texas governor dismantling the Clean Air laws so that such plants could be built, and is now doing the same thing on a national scale so that more plants can be built - and then he cynically gets up in front of the nation and calls for 'clean energy and alternatives to foreign oil' - when every foreign policy action he takes is aimed at securing control of global oil supplies.

Once you recognize that Bush and Cheney are sociopaths & pathological liars it all becomes more understandable. This is the Wall Street presidency, and their wars are Wall Street Wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

investments
Posted by: dbaker on Feb 5, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what might be interesting is a list of financial institutions whom refuse to invest in alternative technologies,
or invest in stolen and suppressed alternative technologies.

The reality is " Going Green " is a side effect of Gonorrhea.

Dennis Baker

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Planet Are These People Living On?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 5, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When no seafood or freshwater fish are available due to Mercury poisoning, when everyone has asthma, etc., what are these people planning to do? Efficiency is much cheaper and more effective than adding capacity, but it doesn't make much money for the Wall Street crowd, does it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it though...
Posted by: Colin on Feb 5, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...yes, I know, like everyone else, that there are undoubtedly big corporate shite's in this world that are not only adding to the problems of global warming but actively profiting from it. And, these people are arsehole's and we all know it. But to say they are the one’s funding the problem seems a little duplicitatious. After all, it is us that funds the funders. Big multi-national companies are just empty offices without the steady income of the customers and consumers.

So, whereas I see merit to the article, I can’t endorse it completely. Someone asked me over the weekend what I thought would have to be done to prevent global warming and I suggested lots of things about personal responsibility. Like, for example, only using a car when there was no alternative (can you not get a bus or the tube to work?). Building and buying television sets and DVD players that are designed to last 20 years instead of being replaced in three or four. Not wrapping every single teeny weeny thing that we buy in enough plastic to, well, destroy a planet.

You should have seen the look on their face (especially about the TV thing). It honestly hadn’t occurred to them that such an idea was possible, let alone beneficial.

So, in answer to the headline, I’m afraid I have to say I think that global warming is being funded for the most part by us, the little people. Yes, the big corporate boys of this world concentrate the pollution pool and will undoubtedly use their influence to make matters better for themselves but worse for everyone else. But when the world goes to the toilets, every single one of us (particularly the fancy Euro/US citizens of this world) should realistically be a little bit ashamed of the part they have played in this sorry mess.

Unless, of course, you want to carry on with your old head up your bum. Which, I have to admit, is certainly the easiest thing to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's an idea
Posted by: johnecolby on Feb 5, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't take out bank accounts with financial institutions which contribute to global warming. And don't take their credit cards, not take out any kind of loan from them. Use a community credit union.

THEN: write a letter telling them what you've done and why. Their bottom line talks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is funding it??/
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 5, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll tell you... everyone who doesn't question the basic assumptions of industrialism and consumerism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of Captains and Kings
Posted by: djnoll on Feb 5, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a book published in the late 60's or 70's and a mini-series on TV called Of Captains and Kings, a fictionalized account of the rise of the Kennedy Clan. While the read was great and the series good, it was what was at the back of the book that I will always remember. The author, whose name escapes me now, had listed where he did his research, and more importantly listed banks and industries that he had discovered were working to gain control of our government here as a way of dominating the governments of the world. It was something I dismissed as a 20-something, but now those lists haunt me and, of course, I cannot find a copy of the original hardcover book any longer to see how many are still working behind the scenes. Try to find it at your public library and have a good read. It is truly spine-chilling to realize how long this quiet take over of our country has been going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is "NEWS"? Banks are the crux of many of our problems.
Posted by: Prophit on Feb 5, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just look at who finances BOTH SIDES OF A WAR???? Banks financed both Hitler and the axis and the allies. Give me a break..... banks have never had any ethical consideration for anything they do..... they have a history of manipulation, currency control, fiat currency (it was the banks who created the so called shortage of funds in the 1978-80 financial crisis that got Jimmy Carter unelected.

From that crisis came new legislation under Reagan/Bush that gave the banks carte blanche to rape and pillage our nation and they have been doing that ever since. Does anyone remember them getting the USUARY rate raised and finally eliminated althogether???? I do!!!!

Nationalize the banks and that ends it. Get the private owners out of the business of running our country and we will once again have prosperity and clean air to breath. Bring the bums down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for connecting the dots between the banks and the war.
Posted by: maxpayne on Feb 5, 2007 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That explains the economic nazism that shows up on CNBC and FauxNews. Also, it's no accident that these same companies who were largely responsible for the TERRORIST BANKRUPTCY OVERHAUL BILL in 2005 stood to benefit from the FAILED war/occupation in Iraq. And if you look carefully, most of these banks still continue to "protect" Al Queda's funds as well as funds from other major terrorist groups. Talk about TOTAL INSECURITY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Global Warming" is GOD'S WILL!!!
Posted by: Jesse Cristo on Feb 5, 2007 12:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You Alterneters have no respect for the workings of the Lord in HIS Creation! And the fact that you don't even trust God's Chosen Servant (Bush) only adds to the evidence that it is you - the liberals - who are the true polluters!!! You pollute the faith we should all have in Dear President and the necessary trust in his Bible based policies and merciful ministrations around the world.

And the astounding HYPOCRISY of you liberals claiming to care about the rain forest and plant life and the environment!!!! The very first thing you will try to do is deprive all those plants you hypocritically claim to love of so much extra Carbon Dioxide our GOD blessed nation produces. That's right...you heard it...Bush's deregulations of "pollution" controls are making the environment safer by creating more gases which plants need to survive. Bush is pumping Miracle Gro into air, not pollution. Didn't you godless liberals learn anything in high school biology? Havent you claimed to prize objective fact above all other things? Plants need Carbon Dioxide to live, and the more the merrier!!!

Receive Jesus Christ as your Savior and confess him as Lord...or else.

AMEN
Jesse Cristo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few notes on the role of the Department of Energy in this business:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 5, 2007 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Department of Energy needs to be reformed to focus on its original goal, which was to develop renewable energy resources and get the US off of foreign oil (global warming wasn't a widely appreciated fact in 1977).

I first discovered this when looking into biofuel research - I found something like 1000 papers on the issue published in 1979; in 1980 it dropped to about 5 as the first thing the Reagan-Bush-Schultz-Saudi axis did when they got into office was to completely hack the entire renewable energy program that was instituted after the 1973 oil shock (mostly by Carter, who signed the law creating the Department of Energy in 1977).

What then happened was a takeover of the DOE by fossil fuel concerns, and the establisment of the DOE as yet another funding conduit into the military-industrial complex - massive giveaways to the likes of Lockheed, Northrup, SAIC, and so on - and the DOE then began to preside over a massive nuclear weapons construction program, while Reagan ran around claiming that the Soviets were going to invade through Guatemala and El Salvador - and the environmental devastation of that round of nuclear weapons production is still with us (General Electric was at the top of the list of recipients).

What's going on now is that politicians of all stripes realize that renewable energy is very popular among the public - but since the politicians all rely on the centers of wealth and power for their campaign funding, and since those centers are primarily reliant on control of traditional energy resources (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear) they largely give nothing more then lip service to renewables, and this is true whether the politicians go by the name of Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush.

The only politicians who will truly be willing to support renewables are those who put the notion of democracy ahead of the notion of empire - so far, Edwards seems like the only one who has that perspective... to bad Bernie Sanders isn't really a viable candidate. (Now the word is that Nader is going to run - he'll spend all his time attacking Democratic candidates, because attacking Republicans won't gain him any votes - and his Greenwashed Party will happily accept funding from the Republicans, if 2000 is any guide - Nader is worse than useless in the political arena)

What looks hopeful is the support of the new technology sector, i.e. Silicon Valley, for renewables - being involved in emerging technology fields seems to give one a sense of the future possibilities, while the technology of fossil fuels hasn't changed much since the 1950's - and the fossil fuel sector is the dinosaur; the renewable energy sector is the little furry mammals running around... and the future is inevitable. The only question remaining is this:

How much of the world will the dinosaurs take down with them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Just In!!! Guess who's NOT funding higher education?
Posted by: MAD on Feb 5, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Bush's budget plan anticipates education spending in such entitlement areas as student lending would drop to $6.6 billion for fiscal 2008 from $9.7 billion this year."

This according to today's Bloomberg. The article went on to give these rosy details.

"No doubt there will be lenders who choose not to participate'' if the proposed subsidies are enacted, said Tom Joyce, a spokesman for Reston, Virginia-based Sallie Mae. That will mean ``less choice and higher costs for students,'' he said.

"We fear that the `lame duck' Bush administration -- now hunkered down over Iraq, committed to a balanced budget, and facing a newly Democratic Congress in its last two years -- may be doing the equivalent of throwing the student loan industry under the bus,'' Gabriel and Oldham said."

So in summation, Bush will ultimately pour a couple trillion into a losing war while simultaneously cutting funding for higher edcuation back home. Nothing new here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The cure 4 higher ed Posted by: Krain61
baby boomers are the ecologic plague
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Feb 5, 2007 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
problem with the banks, and the dirty industries they finance is that they are run by OLD men and women who just dont care about what happens in 30 years, since they know they wont be around anymore, its pure selfishness.

I know two billionaires, a father and his son, who are both my bosses, the difference between how the elder ran the company and his son does is incredible, because while the former didnt care at ALL about ecology (and we operate in a quite dirty industry) his son is a guy who's rdy to invest into it, I had a talk with him last year and he spoke about how he was ready to sacrifice millions of $ to suppress some of the toxic emissions, and its underway right now. The guy's really trying.

There is hope, but the old generation of businessmen must wither and die first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we also seem to forget...
Posted by: bohdan on Feb 5, 2007 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we’re all debating the issue of CO2 and other chemical emissions in regard to global warming; the one crucial factor that is never addressed seriously is --- deforestation, the clearing of lands for whatever reason and especially in the tropics.

With each cut down tree there is one less absorber of CO2 and one less tree to release fresh oxygen into our atmosphere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unsubstantiated claims.
Posted by: gellero on Feb 5, 2007 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
funny that there are no links supplied that support these claims. The EDF has nothing but hyperbole. What are the stats from the manufacturers of these plants? Without proof, these claims are worthless BS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unsubstantiated claims. Posted by: ShoShenQ
If they would realize the money involved
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 5, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though out History wars have been fault and millions and millions died as a result
and each time countries found that there economies became stronger because there
were fewer people to support.Read your history books and you'll see I'm right!
With that being said there still and always be the human need to reproduce..
But since there is so many these days looking to alternative life styles as that of the
gays and lesbians which reduces the amount of people being born and also our
Pharmaceutical and Chemical companies are helping bring our numbers down even
more..To the tune of 5000 people aday just by the Pharmaceutical company..
That's not including medical mistakes! And The Chemical companies are killing
I would say just as many from the stuff we eat..This planet can support many many
more but we need to change how we live here and what we consume! Our resources
is where the problem lies and the corporations who push them for that almighty Dollar!
We should go back to using paper bags which can be made of hemp or recycled paper
and I think they were better anyhow..The things you purchase will dictate what they make.
I see people who give there kids that expensive crap as kids which only hooks them on it
when they become adults. I raised my kids on good old fashion home cooked food and
restricted the higher end goods and now they are some what restricting there use of the
same things I with held from them.. There is away for people to live on this land but we
must use a common sense approach to make it sustain every one..
There was a time for Nuclear power and coal and hydro but all have there draw backs
as we know..Gas fired is still not the best either! We need wind and solar and the sooner
we get that through the thick heads of Governments the faster we can move on and put
that system up and in place.. We have hyways with big areas of grass between them
which would be a ideal place to put wind towers.No peoples land needs to be taken from
them..We all know that for every action there is a re-action..But with our Government
it seems it's always the wrong re-action.Very negative and if they could just realize
the amount of people who could go to work doing this and transforming the
"good ol USA " into just that and what this country use to stand for...
But instead we are hated and thought of as the worst ghg people on earth and the most
greediest and war mongers..Birth control is not the answer but good judgement
and being responsible is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet should really let the letter writers -write the articles....
Posted by: WitchyNy on Feb 5, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they see the big picture. The rich are to blame.
Who cares which rich? Who cares which kind of company?

Also...the problem with the zero population solution people..is the rich need poor people to work for them! Why do you think they allow all the Mexicans to stay? Do you REALLY think it is because they can't FIND them???

It is because America is NOT overpopulated.. by Capitalist standards....most young women today are NOT having enough kids!!!

Look around. How many of your friends have kids? And the ones that do...have only one or two....so where is the future working class for the rich to exploit?

Canada and Australia Goverments have already called for their women to have more kids or they say they will have to import more people!
Who are going to be the future garbage men and bus drivers and dishwashers??? They need more poor people to make more money.
The rich don't care about the Earth. They care about making money. Money is the true religion of the rich.
Capitalism is the problem. What is the question?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You got that right Posted by: JohnF
Dirty US Or Dirty Them?
Posted by: hole11 on Feb 5, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last I looked it was China that was building the coal burning plants that produced the most sulfur. I also noted that HSBC was a Chinese bank before it became a London bank or does it really matter anyways because all their off shore lending practices.

They are busy spewing pollution for profit but if we want to pollute our bodies with illicit drugs we go to jail.

And you want me to write a letter to a bank?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Population, Education and National Wealth
Posted by: ciccio on Feb 6, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must fully agree with all who posted that the major problem
facing our future is overpopulation. I am surprised that China
has not been brought to the fore as a prime example. 25 years ago they introduced the one child policy. Today the world lauds China as a shining example to education. Not, I
suspect, because they have that much better a system, but
a system that suddenly had much smaller class sizes. Nutrition
and parental care are two other factors in healthy child growth. With only one child to feed there is more food. With only one child able to look after the parents in old age, the parents make sure that that child is educated to get the best
possible job. With only one child, the mother is more likely to go to work sooner. In the last few years many of these one-child children have started to enter the work force. I think everyone can see the results.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Guess Again Posted by: hole11
More Fuel for a Clear Northwest Passage?
Posted by: anambrose on Feb 7, 2007 8:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happens to world markets if a NorthWest Passage right bove us suddenly became ice free? America has no long term thinking when it comes to business. If it did we would not have allowed our auto manufacturing to get beat into the ground by its own management competing with Toyota et al. Demming may be dead but his ideas are still being put to use probably by Multi's who have no national allegiance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Glad I cut up my Citibank card
Posted by: bettyn on Feb 12, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
long ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3030
Posted by: sk on Feb 14, 2007 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a mistake to blame the banks' management. They are just business animals. Would a hungry shark eat The Last Turtle On Earth? It would. So would they. Blame the shareholders who have influence on the management and fail to restrict their employees.

Even if the banks will refuse to sell the bond issue, there will be somebody else who will underwrite it. One of the effective ways to stop this is to contact your fund manager (you probably have a pension plan, invest in mutual funds or have something similar). Inform him that your funds will be transfered to another fund/plan unless he adopts certain policies in regards to pollution, tobacco, liquor, etc. This will work if you are really serious about it.

As an example, University of Toronto students recently forced the management to sell University's tobacco holdings.

Next, look at the Texas Business for Clean Air.
http://texasbusinessforcleanair.org/rails/browse/about_us
Who are the members? I see some Book stores and Art Galleries there. At the same time, we can see Bradford Natural Gas Pipeline, Bonanza Oil, Conglomerate Gas LP and a number of financial companies that may or may not have interest in the oil&gas industry. The intensions in this case may be not sincere as coal plants are natural competitors to oil and gas plants (which are more expensive for electricity generation).
Do you think it is the Art Galleries and Book shops that fund this organization?

So, I would not think about the TBCA group as some sort of a "progressive wing" of business community. However, they may be of a definite use in this situation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]