• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1729
      • Показать ещё
      Люди415
      • Показать ещё
      Разное1037
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1109
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации230
      • Показать ещё
      Издания96
      • Показать ещё
      Формат20
      Показатели62
      • Показать ещё
27 апреля, 18:18

Кукуруза против «продвинутых»: объективные перспективы применения биотоплива

Проекты в сфере биотоплива второго поколения (advanced biofuels) получают около $1,5 млрд венчурных инвестиций в год. Каковы перспективы нового направления в мире и в России?

27 апреля, 14:55

Edison International (EIX) Q1 Earnings: What's in Store?

Edison International (EIX) is scheduled to report first-quarter 2017 earnings results on May 1 after market close.

26 апреля, 22:17

Waste Management (WM) Q1 Earnings in Sync, View Reiterated

Despite a challenging macroeconomic environment, Waste Management, Inc. (WM) reported strong first-quarter 2017 results.

26 апреля, 21:32

The Latest Obamacare-Repeal Plan Exacerbates the Political Problems of the First

Instead of fixing its core issues, a potential new amendment to the bill only highlights the problems with the effort to replace Obamacare.

Выбор редакции
26 апреля, 17:30

Managing the Global Energy Transition - NGW Magazine

A new report on achieving the decarbonisation goals of the Paris Agreement makes grim reading for most – even without the new US president to contend with. For the first time, in March of this year the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena)...

26 апреля, 12:11

Trump's already making his mark on climate

His policies mean the U.S. could release billions more tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the coming decades compared with what Barack Obama envisioned.

Выбор редакции
26 апреля, 06:19

Renewable Energy Can Create Jobs, Reduce Greenhouse Gases, and Lower Energy Costs

Basav Sen, of the Institute for Policy Studies, presents an analysis of the many benefits of renewable energy Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

26 апреля, 01:25

Al Gore Wants $15 Trillion To Fight Off Apocalyptic 2 Degree Global Temperature Rise

Al Gore, via a new report from his Energy Transitions Commission (ETC), would like for you to know that he has a plan to save all of mankind from inevitable extinction which will come by around the year 2030 unless we join his global warming crusade immediately. For those of you ignorant, science-hating, climate-doubters among our reader base who refuse to take Al Gore's word at face value, here is a little background on the ETC.  Apparently they have single-handedly taken upon themselves the epic goal of fighting a cataclysmic 2 degree temp rise over the next 20 years. The Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) brings together a diverse group of individuals from the energy and climate communities: investors, incumbent energy companies, industry disruptors, equipment suppliers, energy-intensive industries, non-profit organizations, advisors, and academics from across the developed and developing world. Our aim is to accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development and limit the rise in global temperature to well below 2?C. So, how does Al Gore intend to accomplish his lofty goal of saving planet Earth?  Well, by eradicating coal, installing massive renewable energy projects and enlisting the support of some "forceful public policies," of course.   Energy transition 1 – decarbonization of power combined with extended electrification could account for the largest share of emissions reductions between now and 2040. Zero-carbon sources (mainly renewables) could account for up to 80% of the global power mix by 2040, while coal-fired power need to decline steeply as soon as possible.   Energy transition 2 – decarbonization of activities which cannot be cost-effectively electrified – will probably account for only a small share of emissions reductions over the next 20 years, but will become absolutely vital as the potential for electrification is exhausted. Major work is still required to define the path to success.   Energy transition 3 – energy productivity – considerable progress is being achieved, but a further acceleration is required. This is technically and economically feasible, but will required more forceful public policies.   Energy transition 4 - implies falling fossil fuels use, even if carbon capture and sequestration* is developed on a very large scale. However, at the moment, progress on all forms of carbon sequestration (including natural carbon sinks*, underground storage* and CO² -based products*) is too slow and requires supportive policy frameworks in order to progress. So how much will it cost for Al Gore to save us from ourselves?  How about $15 Trillion...does that sound reasonable to everyone? The transition to a low-carbon global economy* will require significant additional energy system investments – around $300-$600 billion per annum – compared with a business as usual scenario. In the context of global GDP running at around $80 trillion in 2017, and global annual investment at $20 trillion, additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge. Clean energy investments with predictable long-term returns could be attractive to a range of institutional investors in the current low interest rate environment.   However, a well below 2?C pathway requires a major change in the mix of investment. Total fossil fuels investment between now and 2030 could be some $3.7 trillion ($175 billion per year) lower than in a business as usual scenario; investment in renewables and other low-carbon technologies some $6 trillion higher ($300 billion per year); while the largest required increases – of almost $9 trillion ($450 billion per year) – will be in more efficient energy saving equipment and buildings. With all that said, we thought this would be a good opportunity to put Al's view of the future into perspective by reviewing some of the apocalyptic predictions made at the first Earth Day in 1970, courtesy of AEI.org: Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years). Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'” Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

26 апреля, 00:15

Greg Gianforte vs. Rob Quist: Nonpartisan Candidate Guide For 2017 Montana Congressional Race

Are you looking for a nonpartisan voter guide for the Greg Gianforte vs. Rob Quist Congressional race? One that will give you an accurate, no-spin comparison of the candidates’ positions on key issues? Our Campus Election Engagement Project is a national nonpartisan initiative working to increase student electoral participation. Here are the issue-by-issue stands for Greg Gianforte and Rob Quist. Visit our Nonpartisan Candidate Guides home page to find links to printable PDF formats and other nonpartisan guides to candidates and issues. To volunteer, visit gregformontana.com or robquist.org _______________ Abortion: Should abortion be highly restricted? Gianforte: Yes. Has been a strong financial supporter of anti-abortion organizations. Quist: No. Believes women should make their own healthcare decisions. Budget: Support President Trump's budget that would transfer money from domestic programs to the military budget? Gianforte: Position unclear but criticizes Quist for wanting to cut defense spending. Quist: No. "Our federal budget is 64 percent military. That’s money that could be going towards health care or Social Security...This does nothing but make us enemies in the eyes of so many and brings a backlash against the American people.” Campaign Finance: Increase restrictions on campaign donations, including requiring disclosure of political contributions and overturning Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions? Gianforte: Previously stated support for election transparency, but donated significantly to groups opposing MT Disclose Act. No support for overturning Citizens United. [As a private citizen funded efforts to oppose the Act. His gubernatorial campaign lawyer was part of legal team challenging the Act.] Quist: Yes. Supports constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen's United. Climate Change: Believe that human activity is the major factor driving climate change? Gianforte: Questions human role. “The climate is always changing.” Quist: Yes. "Climate change is real and affects Montana farmers and ranchers and our outdoor industry." Climate Change: Should government limit the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Do you support Clean Power Plan, which mandates reductions in carbon emissions at power plants? Gianforte: No. Believes regulations will hurt MT jobs. Specifically opposed Obama EPA rulings as federal overreach & applauded Trump’s ending the Clean Power Plan. Quist: Supported Clean Power Plan. Supports "clean coal" technologies, but also having wind turbines use power lines…. of existing coal plants like Colstrip. Education: Support increasing funding for K-12 education? Gianforte: Unclear. Focus has been on making public funding available for religious & private schools & for training students in computer science and in trades. [See Bozeman Daily Chronicle comparisons from last year's gubernatorial campaign.] Quist: Supports Senator Jon Tester's proposal for financial incentives for teachers to work in rural or reservation schools. Education: Provide vouchers to parents to send their children to private schools with public money? Gianforte: Yes. Strong supporter of helping children attend religious or private schools with vouchers or tax credits, though with some limits in rural areas. [See Billings Gazette article] Quist: No. Opposes attempts to take funding away from public schools. Gay Marriage: Support gay marriage & related LGBT issues? Gianforte: Supports nondiscrimination for employees but not for customers. Lobbied against Bozeman LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance in 2014. Financial supporter of anti-gay marriage groups. [Endorses nondiscrimination for employees including those in his own business. But says businesses should be able to decide who they serve, including decisions based on religious beliefs. Contributes heavily to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage.] Quist: Yes. Believes everyone has a right to marry whoever they choose. Gun Control: Support more restrictive gun control legislation? Gianforte: No. Considers gun rights to be absolute & opposes any infringement on them. Quist: Supports 2nd Amendment rights, but “fully automatic assault rifles” “might need to be registered.” Healthcare: Repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare? Support initial Republican replacement proposal, called the American Health Care Act? Gianforte: Repeal and replace Obamacare. Sell insurance across state lines & reform malpractice to eliminate “frivolous” lawsuits. American Health Care Act “not there yet.” Quist: Fix Obamacare rather than repeal it. Supports single payer insurance and increased transparency in healthcare costs. "Everybody should have a system like Medicare, where you walk in, show your card and you’re covered, no questions asked." Healthcare: Should Planned Parenthood receive public funds for non-abortion health services? Gianforte: Unclear. Quist: Yes. Immigration: Support efforts to ban immigration from Muslim-majority countries and limit refugees? Gianforte: Yes. Quist: No. “Can’t discriminate against an entire ethnic population on the basis of a small group.” Iran: Support the US-Iran treaty that limits Iran’s nuclear capability in return for lifting economic sanctions? Gianforte: No. “Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Quist: Unknown. Minimum Wage: Raise the federal minimum wage? Gianforte: No. Quist: Unknown. Renewable Energy: Support government mandates and/or subsidies for renewable energy? Gianforte: Strong support for MT fossil fuel industries. Mentions renewable energy, but advocacy is focused on supporting fossil fuel jobs. Quist: Yes. Supports transition to renewables, but also invest in “clean coal,” subsidize solar & wind development, explore biomass & geothermal sources. Social Security: Support full or partial Social Security privatization? Gianforte: Has financially supported groups advocating for privatization. Also has said "the concept of retirement is not biblical.” Quist: No. Student Debt: How to address student debt? Gianforte: Unclear. Advocates private donations to higher education. Quist: Supports legislation to streamline student loan process & cap interest rates at maximum of 3%. Taxes: Increase taxes on corporations and/or high-income individuals to pay for public services? Gianforte: No. Pledged to oppose “any or all” tax increases to raise revenue. Favors cutting business & personal taxes to reduce size of government. Quist: Prioritize tax reform by closing loopholes for corporations & support small businesses, workers, & families. Other congressional candidates include Mark Wicks (L). Due to limited space, we can’t include his position, but invite you to check out his website. Created by the Campus Election Engagement Project, a non-partisan effort to help colleges and universities engage their schools in elections. Answers drawn from public candidate statements. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
25 апреля, 23:32

Iceland Geothermal Project Completes Deep Drilling In Volcano

Geologists and engineers have successfully drilled into the heart of a volcano in Iceland, as part of a project aimed at assessing the economic feasibility of using deep unconventional geothermal resources to deliver renewable energy. Drilling so deep into such a hot borehole poses many difficulties, but if researchers manage to overcome the challenges, fewer geothermal wells would need to be drilled in the future because the energy content of fluids so deep into the ground is much higher than conventional geothermal steam. The Deployment of deep…

25 апреля, 23:17

Energy Secretary Rick Perry Supports Paris Climate Agreement, But Wants To Tweak It

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); NEW YORK ― Energy Secretary Rick Perry supports remaining in the Paris climate agreement, but wants the United States to renegotiate its terms, he said Tuesday. That puts him on one side of a schism forming within President Donald Trump’s White House over how to handle the historic 195-country deal to slash emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, first daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, senior adviser Jared Kushner, support remaining in the agreement; chief strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt ― two of the more radical, far-right voices in the White House ― want Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to exit the agreement. Perry, in a Tuesday morning speech at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference, tempered his view. He touted decreasing emissions last year in the U.S. and China ― the world’s top polluters ― and criticized European countries, such as Germany, for not doing enough to shrink their own carbon footprint. “There’s a lot of cheerleading the Paris accord and keeping the United States involved in that,” Perry said. “But the two countries that are making the real impact on emissions are the U.S. and China. So, I’m looking over at my friends in Germany and France going, ‘What are you all doing?’” It’s true that German emissions rose by 0.7 percent last year, driven largely by an increase in vehicles on the road and the continued use of coal to generate about 40 percent of the country’s electricity. The numbers stand in stark contrast to Germany’s hard-line policy supporting renewable energy, which now produces 30 percent of its electricity. The country plans to shutter all its nuclear power plants by 2022 as part of its energiewende, or energy transition, policy. “You have Germany, for instance, who has made the decision to go away from coal, to get out of the nuclear business, to double down, to hear them tell it, on renewables,” Perry said. “But the fact is their emissions have gone up because they’re using more coal, and they’re using coal that is not clean technology.” “My point is, don’t sign an agreement and then expect us to stay in an agreement if you’re not going to really participate and be part of it,” he added. “The United States has taken actions to affect in a positive way. I’m not going to tell the president of the United States, ‘Let’s just walk away from the Paris accord,’ but we probably need to renegotiate it and they need to get serious about it.” Speaking in the heart of liberal-leaning Manhattan at one of the clean energy industry’s most popular events, Perry repeatedly assailed opponents and critics of the new president, who will complete his first 100 days on Saturday. At one point, the cowboy boot-clad secretary said he would hold his tongue on why Texas trumps New York, so as not to offend his host, Michael Bloomberg, the Bloomberg LP CEO and former New York mayor. Taking aim at German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government in particular is on-message for the Trump administration. Merkel’s support for refugees and global trade contrasts with Trump, whose bombastic style and abrupt policy reversals put him at loggerheads with her soft-spoken and technocratic approach to leadership. Merkel reportedly had to explain the “fundamentals” of European trade to Trump 11 times. During a White House visit, Trump refused to shake hands with the chancellor, who enjoyed a close relationship with former President Barack Obama. After Trump’s surprise victory in November, Merkel was dubbed the “leader of the free world” because of the new U.S. president’s cozy ties and lip service to autocratic dictators. Perry criticized the Obama administration for favoring renewable energy, such as wind or solar power, over carbon-capture technology, a controversial technique of sequestering emissions from burning coal, gas and oil, and pumping them deep underground. The technology provides the basis of Trump’s promise to bolster “clean coal,” despite the fact that attempts to pull it off at power plants in the U.S. and Canada have so far failed. It is not reasonable to rely exclusively on fossil fuels. It is not feasible to rely exclusively on renewables. Energy Secretary Rick Perry “Our predecessors led a war on coal,” Perry said, referring to the suite of Obama-era policies to limit carbon emissions from new coal-fired plants. He accused the previous administration of scuttling scientific research that offered politically inconvenient conclusions. It’s unclear if he was referring to findings about the cost or viability of renewables, or about greenhouse gas emissions’ role in causing global warming. Perry, who has publicly rejected the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is manmade, made no mention of climate change during his roughly 50-minute appearance on stage at the conference. “We will not hijack science for pet causes while suppressing it when it doesn’t fit a political agenda,” Perry said. “The last eight years saw policymaking driven by a political agenda.” “Those days are over,” he added. During his speech, Perry announced that he signed an order authorizing the Golden Pass liquefied natural gas plant in southeast Texas to begin exporting to countries that don’t have a free-trade agreement with the U.S. Construction of the new terminal, he said, would create 45,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next five years. In a clear criticism of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), a close ally of defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Perry bashed unnamed Northeast governors who refuse to green-light natural gas pipelines and projects. “Gas pipelines are a form of transportation that can drive the national economy and improve energy security,” he said. “Part of the country here in the Northeast is being denied natural gas access to their homes because of political opposition. Consumers are going to decide with their wallet, their vote or their feet when they move somewhere else.” That isn’t to say Perry rejected renewable energy outright. During his three terms as Texas governor, wind energy skyrocketed, transforming the oil-rich state into by far the largest wind producer in the country. With 11,592 turbines and 20,321 megawatts, Texas has three times the capacity of Iowa, the runner up. Many economists argue that heavy government investment in renewables is needed to help the industry compete with fossil fuels, which have for over a century enjoyed generous subsidies and tax incentives, and that the societal cost of carbon emissions should be factored into energy markets. Disregarding that, Perry said the Trump administration’s heavy emphasis on fossil fuels was more of a correction for its predecessor’s support for renewables than a complete reversal of policies. “No reasonable person can deny that the thumb and in some cases the whole hand has been put on the scale to favor certain political outcomes,” he said. “It is not reasonable to rely exclusively on fossil fuels. It is not feasible to rely exclusively on renewables. We’re working to find the right balance.” type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5880e03ee4b096b4a2302318,5880fe24e4b070d8cad116ff,5880ed59e4b070d8cad0f50d,58b07ebae4b060480e079dc2,559aab91e4b0c706985a42be -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

25 апреля, 21:03

ETFs in Focus After General Electric & Honeywell Q1 Earnings

General Electric and Honeywell released their 2017 Q1 results on April 21, 2017, beating Zacks Consensus estimates on both revenue and earnings fronts.

25 апреля, 19:22

Here Is What Tax Reform We Actually Need Would Look Like

At 75,000 pages and 2.4 million words, the U.S. tax code is twice the size of Encyclopedia Britannica and nearly 200 times longer than it was a century ago. According to the latest report from our National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS (who knew we had one?), it takes individuals and businesses 6 billion hours every year to prepare and file their taxes. Congress has made 5,900 changes to the code since 2001, but the tax system has not had a comprehensive makeover in 30 years. As President Trump and the Congress embark on tax reform, their objective should be more than collapsing brackets and cutting the code down to the size of a good novel. The tax code should be a powerful tool for making the country stronger, fairer and better equipped for the 21st century. Here are some items that should be on our checklists as we grade how the Administration and Congress do. Corporate competitiveness At 35 percent, the corporate tax rate in the United States is the third highest in the world and the highest among industrial nations. While Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan have not agreed on what the rate should be, both want it cut roughly in half on the assumption that fewer companies will leave, more will come, and many will repatriate some of the $1 trillion they have parked offshore to avoid taxes. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, the United States is not considered a laggard in creating a competitive manufacturing environment. Deloitte Touche asked 500 corporate CEOs around the world last year to rank manufacturing competitiveness by country. The United States ranked second, just behind China. The executives predicted that the U.S. would climb to No. 1 by 2020. Second, U.S. companies actually pay far less in taxes than the 35 percent rate suggests. In fact, an international research center determined that the U.S. has the highest amount of corporate tax avoidance in the world. American corporations use tax breaks and loopholes to cut their collective tax liability by nearly $190 billion annually (Figure 1). So, if the corporate tax rate is reduced, the number of tax shelters, loopholes, subsidies and breaks should be greatly reduced, too. The president and Congress should also consider whether a big cut in corporate taxes is the best investment to keep U.S. companies at home. In its survey of CEOs, Deloitte Touche found that many other factors ranked higher than taxes in driving manufacturing competitiveness (Figure 2). They include a talented and productive workforce, a good education system and modern physical infrastructure. A decent energy policy and healthcare system are among the top twelve drivers, too. Wealth and income inequality Research by the World Economic Forum earlier this year found that the U.S. ranks next to last in the world in net income and wealth equality. The problem with Trump’s trickle-down approach to economics is that there is little or no trickle. What will tax reform do about the Americans at or near the bottom of the income range whose wages have stagnated and who feel with justification that their American Dream has slipped away? Will Congress keep Trump’s promise to “massively lower taxes on the middle class?” What else will it do to close the income and wealth gaps? Will tax reform also address the country’s gender and racial wage inequality? Energy subsidy reform There is a consistent drumbeat by fiscal conservatives that free-market forces rather than the government should “pick winners” among energy technologies. But the same conservatives are chronically silent about one of the largest government-supported market distortions ― taxpayer subsidies. Various estimates put federal tax subsidies for fossil fuels at around $30 billion annually. The result, especially with Trump’s efforts to emasculate the EPA and rescind environmental regulations, is that the current tax code encourages air, land and water pollution from the production and consumption of oil, coal and natural gas. If Republicans want to be sincere about free-market economics, they will phase out fossil energy subsidies on the same timetable as they are already phasing out subsidies for renewable energy. Taxing carbon pollution There is another big reason our energy markets are broken. The actual cost of energy includes its impacts on public health and the environment. Those costs are not reflected in consumer prices, however. Tax reform should close the gap between market prices and actual costs. One way to begin is to attach a surcharge to fossil fuels — the so-called carbon tax — to better reflect the full and true costs of carbon pollution. One point of contention is what the federal government would do with the additional tax revenues. The plan with least political risk is to send all the revenues back to the American people. Instead, Congress should invest a significant portion of the revenues in modernizing America’s outdated energy infrastructure. The outdated electric grid is inhibiting the spread of pollution-free solar and wind energy. Recent power outages in Michigan, New York and San Francisco are the latest evidence of how bad weather and antiquated equipment shut down vital energy services. A government study estimates that weather, the most common cause of power interruptions, costs the national economy tens of billions of dollars every year. Four months ago, the U.S. Department of Energy warned that the electric grid is in imminent danger from cyberattacks. Last month, a report from MIT recommended federal tax incentives for the owners of gas pipelines and the electric grid to protect them from cyberattack. Another portion of new revenues could help Americans improve the energy efficiency of their homes, businesses and transportation choices so that savings on energy bills help offset any increase in consumer prices. Address 21st century realities The tax code needs to address other new realities. Should it encourage people to make their homes and businesses more resilient to extreme weather or, better yet, to move buildings out of hazard zones? Should it spur the development of community-scale micro-grids to make power supplies more secure? Should the code encourage workers to retrain themselves for the skills they need in our rapidly changing economy? In short, the job before Congress is not simply to simplify the tax code. It is an opportunity to help modernize America, update the skills of the workforce, reduce economic inequities, eliminate perverse and counterproductive subsidies, and make our lives and country more secure. Those are among the criteria we should use to judge how successful the president and Congress are in retooling the tax system. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58fea39be4b00fa7de16fc72,58ff63aae4b06c83622e70a7 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

25 апреля, 19:22

Here Is What Tax Reform We Actually Need Would Look Like

At 75,000 pages and 2.4 million words, the U.S. tax code is twice the size of Encyclopedia Britannica and nearly 200 times longer than it was a century ago. According to the latest report from our National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS (who knew we had one?), it takes individuals and businesses 6 billion hours every year to prepare and file their taxes. Congress has made 5,900 changes to the code since 2001, but the tax system has not had a comprehensive makeover in 30 years. As President Trump and the Congress embark on tax reform, their objective should be more than collapsing brackets and cutting the code down to the size of a good novel. The tax code should be a powerful tool for making the country stronger, fairer and better equipped for the 21st century. Here are some items that should be on our checklists as we grade how the Administration and Congress do. Corporate competitiveness At 35 percent, the corporate tax rate in the United States is the third highest in the world and the highest among industrial nations. While Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan have not agreed on what the rate should be, both want it cut roughly in half on the assumption that fewer companies will leave, more will come, and many will repatriate some of the $1 trillion they have parked offshore to avoid taxes. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, the United States is not considered a laggard in creating a competitive manufacturing environment. Deloitte Touche asked 500 corporate CEOs around the world last year to rank manufacturing competitiveness by country. The United States ranked second, just behind China. The executives predicted that the U.S. would climb to No. 1 by 2020. Second, U.S. companies actually pay far less in taxes than the 35 percent rate suggests. In fact, an international research center determined that the U.S. has the highest amount of corporate tax avoidance in the world. American corporations use tax breaks and loopholes to cut their collective tax liability by nearly $190 billion annually (Figure 1). So, if the corporate tax rate is reduced, the number of tax shelters, loopholes, subsidies and breaks should be greatly reduced, too. The president and Congress should also consider whether a big cut in corporate taxes is the best investment to keep U.S. companies at home. In its survey of CEOs, Deloitte Touche found that many other factors ranked higher than taxes in driving manufacturing competitiveness (Figure 2). They include a talented and productive workforce, a good education system and modern physical infrastructure. A decent energy policy and healthcare system are among the top twelve drivers, too. Wealth and income inequality Research by the World Economic Forum earlier this year found that the U.S. ranks next to last in the world in net income and wealth equality. The problem with Trump’s trickle-down approach to economics is that there is little or no trickle. What will tax reform do about the Americans at or near the bottom of the income range whose wages have stagnated and who feel with justification that their American Dream has slipped away? Will Congress keep Trump’s promise to “massively lower taxes on the middle class?” What else will it do to close the income and wealth gaps? Will tax reform also address the country’s gender and racial wage inequality? Energy subsidy reform There is a consistent drumbeat by fiscal conservatives that free-market forces rather than the government should “pick winners” among energy technologies. But the same conservatives are chronically silent about one of the largest government-supported market distortions ― taxpayer subsidies. Various estimates put federal tax subsidies for fossil fuels at around $30 billion annually. The result, especially with Trump’s efforts to emasculate the EPA and rescind environmental regulations, is that the current tax code encourages air, land and water pollution from the production and consumption of oil, coal and natural gas. If Republicans want to be sincere about free-market economics, they will phase out fossil energy subsidies on the same timetable as they are already phasing out subsidies for renewable energy. Taxing carbon pollution There is another big reason our energy markets are broken. The actual cost of energy includes its impacts on public health and the environment. Those costs are not reflected in consumer prices, however. Tax reform should close the gap between market prices and actual costs. One way to begin is to attach a surcharge to fossil fuels — the so-called carbon tax — to better reflect the full and true costs of carbon pollution. One point of contention is what the federal government would do with the additional tax revenues. The plan with least political risk is to send all the revenues back to the American people. Instead, Congress should invest a significant portion of the revenues in modernizing America’s outdated energy infrastructure. The outdated electric grid is inhibiting the spread of pollution-free solar and wind energy. Recent power outages in Michigan, New York and San Francisco are the latest evidence of how bad weather and antiquated equipment shut down vital energy services. A government study estimates that weather, the most common cause of power interruptions, costs the national economy tens of billions of dollars every year. Four months ago, the U.S. Department of Energy warned that the electric grid is in imminent danger from cyberattacks. Last month, a report from MIT recommended federal tax incentives for the owners of gas pipelines and the electric grid to protect them from cyberattack. Another portion of new revenues could help Americans improve the energy efficiency of their homes, businesses and transportation choices so that savings on energy bills help offset any increase in consumer prices. Address 21st century realities The tax code needs to address other new realities. Should it encourage people to make their homes and businesses more resilient to extreme weather or, better yet, to move buildings out of hazard zones? Should it spur the development of community-scale micro-grids to make power supplies more secure? Should the code encourage workers to retrain themselves for the skills they need in our rapidly changing economy? In short, the job before Congress is not simply to simplify the tax code. It is an opportunity to help modernize America, update the skills of the workforce, reduce economic inequities, eliminate perverse and counterproductive subsidies, and make our lives and country more secure. Those are among the criteria we should use to judge how successful the president and Congress are in retooling the tax system. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58fea39be4b00fa7de16fc72,58ff63aae4b06c83622e70a7 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

25 апреля, 19:01

Wind power capacity grows again in Q1

CHINA’S installed wind power capacity continued to grow in the first quarter of this year, according to the National Energy Administration. China had 151 million kilowatts of installed wind power capacity

25 апреля, 13:00

Why You Should Have (at Least) Two Careers

It’s not uncommon to meet a lawyer who’d like to work in renewable energy, or an app developer who’d like to write a novel, or an editor who fantasizes about becoming a landscape designer. Maybe you also dream about switching to a career that’s drastically different from your current job. But in my experience, it’s rare for such people to actually make the leap. The costs of switching seem too high, and the possibility of success seems too remote. But the answer isn’t to plug away in your current job, unfulfilled and slowly burning out. I think the answer is to do both. Two careers are better than one. And by committing to two careers, you will produce benefits for both. In my case, I have four vocations: I’m a corporate strategist at a Fortune 500 company, US Navy Reserve officer, author of several books, and record producer. The two questions that people ask me most frequently are “How much do you sleep?” and “How do you find time to do it all?” (my answers: “plenty” and “I make the time”). Yet these “process” questions don’t get to the heart of my reasons and motivations. Instead, a more revealing query would be, “Why do you have multiple careers?” Quite simply, working many jobs makes me happier and leaves me more fulfilled. It also helps me perform better at each job. Here’s how. Subsidize Your Skill Development My corporate job paycheck subsidizes my record producing career. With no track record as a producer, nobody was going to pay me to produce his or her music, and it wasn’t money that motivated me to become a producer in the first place — it was my passion for jazz and classical music. Therefore, I volunteered so that I could gain experience in this new industry. My day job not only afforded me the capital to make albums, but it taught me the skills to succeed as a producer. A good producer should be someone who knows how to create a vision, recruit personnel, establish a timeline, raise money, and deliver products. After producing over a dozen albums and winning a few Grammys, record labels and musicians have started to reach out to see if they can hire me as a producer. I still refuse payment because making music, something that is everlasting, is reward enough for me. At the same time, I typically invite my corporate clients to recording sessions. For someone who works at an office all day, it’s exciting to go “behind-the-scenes” and interact with singers, musicians, and other creative professionals. While I was in Cuba making an album, one of my clients observed about the dancing musicians, “I’ve never been around people who have so much fun at work.” That my clients have a phenomenal experience only helps me drive revenue at work, so my corporate and recording careers are mutually beneficial. You and Your Team Series Career Transitions Free Yourself from What You “Should” Be Doing Andy Molinsky How to Use Your LinkedIn Profile to Power a Career Transition Jane Heifetz Change Your Career Without Having to Start All Over Again Dorie Clark Make Friends in Different Circles When I worked on Wall Street, my professional circle was initially limited to other folks in the financial services sector: bankers, traders, analysts, economists. Taken together, all of us establish a “consensus” view on the markets. And most of my asset manager clients were looking for something different: “Give me a contrarian perspective.” In other words, they didn’t want to hear the groupthink. I took this as marching orders to tap my rolodex for people who could provide my clients a differentiated perspective. For example, one of my clients wanted to understand what Chinese citizens were saying to each other. Because I am an author, I have gotten to know other writers, so I reached out to my friend who was a journalist at a periodical that monitors chatter in China. Not restricted by the compliance department of a bank, he was able to give an unbridled perspective to my client, who was most appreciative. My client got a new idea. I got a trade. My friend got a new subscriber. By being in different circles, you can selectively introduce people who would typically never meet and unlock value for everyone. Discover Real Innovations When you work different jobs, you can identify where ideas interact — and more significantly, where they should interact. “It’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our heart sing,” said Steve Jobs, who was the embodiment of interdisciplinary thinking. Because of Hurricane Katrina, many musicians left New Orleans. In order to generate funds to help musicians in the city, I could have created a typical nonprofit organization that solicits people for money. Instead, I helped create a more sustainable solution: a brokerage for musicians that I described as Wall Street meets Bourbon Street. People wanting to book a musician for a party in New York could find a band on my organization’s website, which would then ask the booker to add a “tip” which would be allocated to a New Orleans-based charity. The booker (who in some cases were my corporate clients) easily found a band for the party, the New York City-based musician got a gig, and the charity in New Orleans got a small donation. Because of my time working at a bank, I was able to create a different type of organization, one which has since merged with an even larger charitable organization. When you follow your curiosities, you will bring passion to your new careers, which will leave you more fulfilled. And by doing more than one job, you may end up doing all of them better.

25 апреля, 10:08

На пороге декарбонизации и дешевой энергии

Ежегодные инвестиции в возобновляемые источники энергии достигли 300 млрд долларов, что сопоставимо с финансовыми потоками, направляемыми в традиционную энергетику. Согласно прогнозам глобальные инвестиции в создание и развитие генерирующих мощностей на основе возобновляемых в течение ближайших 10 лет могут достичь 1,9 трлн долларов США. Во многих странах, в том числе богатых углеводородами, доля ВИЭ к 2035 […]

24 апреля, 15:58

The 5 Biggest Celebrity Environmentalists

Some celebrities use their public personas for good. Here are 5 of the most outspoken celebrity environmentalists in Hollywood.

24 апреля, 15:43

What's in the Cards for DTE Energy (DTE) in Q1 Earnings?

DTE Energy (DTE) carries a Zacks Rank #3, which increases the predictive power of ESP. However, the company's Earnings ESP of -1.29% makes surprise prediction difficult.

24 апреля, 09:05

Установлен новый мировой рекорд эффективности получения водорода при помощи солнечной энергии

Ученые из Национальной Лаборатории возобновляемых источников энергии (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL) американского Министерства энергетики (Department of Energy, DOE) установили новый мировой рекорд эффективности получения водорода за счет прямого использования солнечной энергии. Этот рекорд, полученные при помощи технологии фотоэлектрохимического процесса расщепления воды, составил 16.2 процента, а предыдущий рекорд, установленный в...

27 ноября 2014, 12:39

Почему Google отказалась от "зеленой" энергетики

Несколько лет назад компания Google инициировала амбициозный энергетический проект. Но даже мастеру инноваций современной эпохи не удалось найти реальную замену углю и другим ископаемым источникам топлива. Целью проекта RE

10 июня 2014, 09:23

Налоги на нефть. Mother Jones

Обсуждение налогов на добычу полезных ископаемых, а также льгот в этой области зачастую оказывается значимой частью политической полемики. Эту тему энергично освещают СМИ; она же в ряде случаев фигурирует как знаковый момент политической или активистской риторики. В США последняя волна налоговых льгот в недавней истории пришлась на 1995 г., когда цены на нефть упали настолько, что вложения в отрасль стали казаться невыгодными. Чтобы дать стимул к развитию нефтедобычи, правительство стало вводить налоговые льготы, вплоть до полного устранения налогов для тех, кто разрабатывал нерентабельные или низкорентабельные месторождения (например, глубоководные). В результате эти льготы продолжают действовать в отношении разработок, начавшихся в период с 1996 по 2000 г. Властям США в условиях бюджетного дефицита такие льготы в настоящее время очень невыгодны, тем более что цены на нефть, с тех пор как льготы были введены, выросли в десятки раз. В связи с этим тема устранения этих льгот обсуждается регулярно. В 2013 г., например, за нее энергично взялся [1] конгрессмен Эдвард Марки (Edward Markey, демократ из Массачусетса), член Комитета по природным ресурсам. Он, в частности, подсчитал, что если бы налоговые льготы отменили сразу после того, как цены на нефть начали расти, то общий доход бюджету от налогов, выплачиваемых нефтяными компаниями, мог бы составить порядка $11 млрд. Входящие в состав Комитета демократы выпустили отчет, в котором сообщалось, что около 25% нефти, добываемой только в Мексиканском заливе в настоящий момент не подлежит налогообложению, то есть более 100 нефтегазовых компаний арендуют не менее 200 не облагаемых налогом нефтеносных участков. По их прогнозам, если снять льготы, то за следующие 10 лет дополнительный доход бюджета составит порядка $15,5 млрд. Нефтяные компании, в свою очередь, стали высказываться резко против этой инициативы Комитета. В частности, они сразу стали апеллировать к тому, что устранение льгот приведет к сокращению объемов нефтедобычи, так как у компаний пропадет стимул к разработке труднодоступных месторождений, а дохода федеральному бюджету, соответственно, не прибавится. Еще один распространенный аргумент [2] состоит в том, что уплата налогов в итоге ляжет не на корпорации, а на плечи конечного потребителя, который будет больше платить за нефтепродукты . Компромисс до сих пор не был найден, и полемика продолжается. В апреле 2014 г. был опубликован большой материал [3] в левом некоммерческом издании Mother Jones, которое, конечно, поддерживает отмену льгот для крупных корпораций. Авторы, в частности, приводят следующие цифры. За последние сто лет федеральное правительство вложило в нефтегазовую отрасль более $470 млрд. в виде налоговых льгот, которые «первоначально были призваны поддержать американских нефтяников, а потом превратились в чистый бонус для самых доходных в мире компаний». При этом налогоплательщики сейчас спонсируют нефтедобычу в размере примерно $4,8 млрд. в год, из которых половина идет пяти крупным нефтяным компаниям (ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP и ConocoPhillips). Их льготный налог в среднем составляет $3,34 за баррель, притом что цены на нефть превысили $100 за баррель. Авторы также отмечают, что со времени введения первых государственных субсидий для нефтедобывающих компаний (это произошло в 1916 г.) вопрос о непропорциональном распределении налоговой нагрузки поднимался неоднократно – преимущественно при президентах-демократах. В частности, приводится высказывание Гарри Трумэна, который назвал правила взимания налогов с нефтедобывающих компаний самой вопиющей дырой в системе налогообложения. Тем не менее, вплоть до настоящего момента нефтяники удерживают за собой льготы. Технически говоря, они сейчас действительно ничего не получают от государства, помимо налоговых поблажек, а для того чтобы отменить их, нужно изменить законодательство. Когда цены на нефть после 1998 г. только начали расти, министерство внутренних дел США (DOI - iv_g) попыталось ввести ограничения на льготы, поставив порог в $28 за баррель, после которого льготы считались недействительными. Большинство компаний последовали этому требованию, однако корпорация Kerr McGee, которую позднее купила Anadarko, подала на министерство в суд на том основании, что у него не было права вводить такие ограничения. Kerr McGee выиграла процесс, после чего все компании, уже выплатившие налоги, получили эти средства обратно. Больше подобных инициатив пока не было. Британские нефтяные компании сейчас энергично разрабатывают месторождения в Северном море. Прибыль с этого они начали получать во второй половине 1970-х гг., а в середине 1980-х гг. наступил первый пик их доходности, составившей более 3% национального дохода. По некоторым подсчетам, с начала разработок к настоящему моменту доход государству должен составить 850 млрд. фунтов. В отличие от США, полемика о налоговых льготах в области добычи нефти в Соединенном Королевстве не настолько острая. Стимулирующие льготы там обычно встраиваются в бюджетный план на предстоящий год. Это, конечно, тоже может быть поводом для возмущения, но менее массового. В частности, когда в 2012 г. ряд компаний, в том числе BP, получили льготы [4] на разработку глубоководных месторождений к северу от Шотландии, это вызвало недовольство у экологов и сторонников зеленых движений. Оно было вызвано тем, что нефтяные компании не просто получили разрешение на проведение своих неэкологичных работ (особенно BP, отметившаяся в 2010 г. тем, что разлила в Мексиканском заливе нефть и устроила там экологическую катастрофу), но еще и удостоились за это вознаграждения. Всерьез тема налогов на добычу нефти стала обсуждаться в британской прессе – также, в первую очередь, с позиции политического противостояния – в 2014 г. Поводом послужило поступившее в январе сообщение [5] норвежского национального Пенсионного фонда о том, что каждый норвежец стал потенциальным миллионером, так как объемы фонда достиг 5 трлн. крон, в миллион раз превысив численность населения страны (около 5 млн. человек). В 1990 г. был создан Нефтяной фонд, куда стали поступать налоги из нефтегазовой отрасли (в том числе налоги на добычу). Позднее он был объединен с Пенсионным фондом, в результате чего получился такой эффект. Естественно, граждане не могут просто прийти в фонд и забрать деньги. Однако известно, что эти средства идут на обеспечение гражданских нужд, в том числе строительство дорог и обеспечение отопления. По подсчетам экспертов [6], доход от нефтяных налогов на душу населения в Великобритании, конечно, был бы меньше - с учетом большей численности населения, однако всё равно составил бы около 13 000 фунтов на человека. Но ничего в этой сфере не изменилось, и ни о каком использовании этих средств для прямого обеспечения гражданских нужд речи не идет. Эти средства шли и продолжают идти на установление налоговых льгот для крупных корпораций вне нефтяной сферы. Левые комментаторы ставят это в упрек консервативным правительством, по чьей инициативе это было организовано так. Их оппоненты указывают на общественную полезность стимулирования развития бизнеса http://www.oilru.com/news/412616/ http://polit.ru/article/2014/06/01/oil_royalty/ 1/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/lawmaker-attacks-oil-companies-free-drilling-in-gulf/2013/02/26/cc55014a-806a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html 2/ http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2014/04/californians-already-pay-oil-severance-tax-states/  3/ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks 4/ http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-oil-industry-tax 5/ http://www.radioazadlyg.ru/content/article/25225524.html 6/ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fund  - - - - Выжимка из статьи i/ В США последняя волна налоговых льгот в недавней истории пришлась на 1995 г., когда цены на нефть упали настолько, что вложения в отрасль стали казаться невыгодными. Чтобы дать стимул к развитию нефтедобычи, правительство стало вводить налоговые льготы, вплоть до полного устранения налогов для тех, кто разрабатывал нерентабельные или низкорентабельные месторождения (например, глубоководные). В результате эти льготы продолжают действовать в отношении разработок, начавшихся в период с 1996 по 2000 г. ii/ около 25% нефти, добываемой только в Мексиканском заливе в настоящий момент не подлежит налогообложению, то есть более 100 нефтегазовых компаний арендуют не менее 200 не облагаемых налогом нефтеносных участков. iii/ если снять льготы, то за следующие 10 лет дополнительный доход бюджета составит порядка $15,5 млрд. iv/ За последние сто лет федеральное правительство вложило в нефтегазовую отрасль более $470 млрд. в виде налоговых льгот v/ налогоплательщики сейчас спонсируют нефтедобычу в размере примерно $4,8 млрд. в год, из которых половина идет пяти крупным нефтяным компаниям (ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP и ConocoPhillips). Их льготный налог в среднем составляет $3,34 за баррель, притом что цены на нефть превысили $100 за баррель. Выводы i/ Убивать курицу, несущую золотые яйца, чтобы получить в среднем прибавку $1,5 млрд. в год неразумно. ii/ Налоговые льготы за 100 лет в среднем $4,7 млрд. в год, вероятно, большая часть в последние 20 лет. Очень немного, принимая во внимание мультиплицирующий эффект на экономику и значительную степень выработанности запасов - - - - Mother Jones Mother Jones (abbreviated MoJo) is an American magazine featuring investigative and breaking news reporting on politics, the environment, human rights, and culture. First issue February 1976 Company Foundation For National Progress http://www.motherjones.com/search/apachesolr_search/oil Jan. 2, 2013 Big Oil's Billions in Tax Perks Survive Fiscal Cliff Deal http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/big-oil-tax-subsidy-fiscal-cliff Apr. 14, 2014 A Brief History of Big Tax Breaks for Oil Companies http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline  Oil derricks and a "lake" of spilled crude in Santa Barbara, California, in 1935. Associated Press      Chart sources Estimated Annual Tax Breaks for the Big Five: Center for American Progress Estimated Tax Break per Barrel of Oil Produced in US: Calculation based on companies' SEC filings and Center for American Progress data Total Tax Breaks…/Average Annual Tax Breaks: DBL Investors (PDF), Congressional Budget Office (PDF) Political Giving Center for Responsive Politics Federal Lobbying: Center for Responsive Politics Campaign Spending by Top 20 Donors: Center for Responsive Politics Energy Tax Breaks: Congressional Budget Office (PDF) Where Our Energy Comes From: Energy Information Administration http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-renewable-energy-tax-breaks  О диаграммах i/ Налоговые льготы ВИЭ весьма существенны ii/ Лоббирование ВИЭ значительно, особенно если посмотреть как долю от продаж iii/ Сравнивать 2005 и 2011 не совсем корректно. 2005 - пик добычи традиционной нефти в мире и в отдельных компаниях iv/ Журнал демократов ведет кампанию против нефтяных компаний, которые плохо финансируют демократов. И более благосклонен к ВИЭ, которые приносят демократам больше, чем республиканцам v/ Налоговые льготы ВИЭ весьма существенны особенно если сравнивать объем льгот и производство энергии. На максимуме в 2008 г. налоговые льготы на ВИЭ превосходили все льготы на ископаемое топливо в более чем в 5 раз, а сейчас превосходят более чем в 2раза.

18 февраля 2014, 14:14

Успехи Техаса и США: нефть и газ животворящие :)

Richard W. Fisher, President and CEOFederal Reserve Bank of DallasDallas, Texas February 11, 2014             - - - - - - - 05 Февраль 2014 О ценах на газ в США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/997777.html   23 Октябрь 2013 U.S. Natural Gas Proved Reserves, 2011. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/956077.html   28 Август 2013 McKinsey: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal (Energy) http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931584.html  26 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа. 2 http://iv-g.livejournal.com/931067.html   24 Август 2013 API.org: Инфографика о добыче сланцевых нефти и газа http://iv-g.livejournal.com/929565.html   17 Январь 2013 IEA: World Energy Outlook 2012. Presentation to the press http://iv-g.livejournal.com/818512.html  26 Декабрь 2012 forbes: Влияние нетрадиционных газа и нефти на экономику США http://iv-g.livejournal.com/806390.html   25 Июль 2012 Занятость в США и добыча углеводородов http://iv-g.livejournal.com/715320.html     28 Март 2012 Citigroup report. Energy 2020: North America as the new Middle East http://iv-g.livejournal.com/633928.html