Recently in Business and Economics Category

Anna Clark interviews Pat Gibbons of Green Earth Market:

Pat remembers a convergence of coincidences happening in 1991 when he felt called to develop his idea for Green Earth Market. “My son had just been born and I remember reading an article about residual chemicals from pesticides and chemical fertilizers on our fruits and vegetables. I learned that our infants and toddlers get a disproportionate amount of these chemicals. Seeing organic baby foods on the shelves, it was a no-brainer. Looking into organics led me to looking into natural and recycled products and found there were lots of really cool unique products” says Pat. “Also, I had a friend who managed a landfill company and kept telling me about all the stuff that went into the landfill that should be recycled or reused.” Pat continues, “after reading my mother’s copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity my faith grew to a point that everything needed to be about that, and this fit.”

Green Earth Market's home page is here.

Heritage/Morning Bell:

Two competing solar power companies, Ausra and BrightSource Energy, recently filed plans to build plants in the California desert. Both firms’ plans affected wildlife habitat. But only Ausra’s plans were hit with complaints demanding expensive and cumbersome environmental studies. The reason? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

Not encouraging.

Excerpts from "New Obama rules will transform US auto fleet" :

Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more.

So business' will get hit with higher costs. Especially small business'. Can our bankrupt car companies afford to sell less of trucks - a best seller?

That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.

"Smaller, lighter" to me means "less safe." I don't care if a Prius meets government standards, you can't change physics. More steel, more weight, more protection.

Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.

"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."

The government doesn't care about you Dixie. They think they can run your business better than you. And they believe in the Global Warming Hoax, and believe you should believe in it too.

Of course, developing the technology will cost money — billions of dollars — and automakers will pass that on to their customers.

No kidding.

The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.

Not when gas keeps rising. Who can wait three years?

Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.

So it's in the government's best interest to not attempt to lower gas prices .

But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.

Who want's to pay luxury prices for a car that - compared to the luxury cars - is a soda pop can?

Is anyone yet regretting electing these people who are intent on ruining your life? Yes, let's improve how we drive, but let's not drive off a cliff in the process. -D

Update your green business portfolio with today's lowdown from Cleantech Blog, which includes this:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce just released a study performed by Charles River Associates estimating 3 million jobs to lost in the U.S. by 2030 as a result of climate change legislation. Last year, the Chamber commissioned a similar study announcing a similar doom-and-gloom result. I’m not saying there won’t be job losses as a result of cap-and-trade – there certainly will – but I don’t think it’s going to be apocalyptic either....

Yey!  Something associated with climate change that isn't apocalyptic.

(Until it's his job of course.)

UPDATE: From a RIIPL email today:

The Waxman-Markey Bill is The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) and it has 4 goals: promote renewable sources of energy (including a new Smart Grid which is necessary to transmit clean, renewable energy to population centers), enact energy efficiency measures that will save consumers money, put limits on planet-warming emissions from large-scale industries; and create millions of new American jobs in clean energy technology.

Are these folks looking at the same bill?  Heh.  Healthy political debate's indeed a good thing...