• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1883
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1194
      • Показать ещё
      Разное1101
      • Показать ещё
      Люди367
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации234
      • Показать ещё
      Издания113
      • Показать ещё
      Формат23
      Показатели61
      • Показать ещё
03 декабря, 02:50

Protecting Our World: Bringing the Battle To The Boardroom

My uncle served on the front lines of Germany in World War II. And, like most heroes of his generation, he didn't talk much about it. But as the years passed, I was lucky enough to hear a few first hand experiences of that time in history. Usually over early morning scrambled eggs when he and my father would visit. One of those stories was about a fellow serviceman who became a lifelong friend. This man had been a POW. Then escaped. Forced to hide in a cave for nearly two years, he survived only through the bravery and kindness of a German family who risked their own wellbeing to sneak him food. Hearing this story taught me that the battles of justice and equality are not always fought on the front lines. And sometimes you find allies where you least expect them. In today's fight for justice and equality, which seems to have just ramped up to a new level, I have found an ally in one of the most unexpected places of all. On Wall Street. Here, among the wolves we hear so much about, is a pack of lionesses. Strong, fierce, forward thinking women who are doing their part to protect the pride known as humanity. They are The Lily Group at Morgan Stanley: An all-female team of financial advisors who collectively embody the mind of a financial wizard and the heart of an activist. These ladies are everything you would expect from strong, sharp, socially minded female leaders. They nurture talent. They embrace clients as their own. And they know how to roll up their sleeves and go into ball buster mode when it comes to driving success. They help create financial wealth for their clients. They just strive to do so in a way that improves the planet and life for those of us who walk upon it. As a team that includes a mother-daughter duo, the women of The Lily Group understand the value of family. There is real humanity within their walls. Holidays are sacred. Children are welcome in the office. In fact, open a drawer and you just might find some crayons to keep kids occupied while parents meet with their advisors. Tapping into the fierce female tendency to care for our own, The Lily Group aims to manage money in ways that protect our resources, our minorities and our civil rights through purpose-driven impact investing. Impact investing, an investment approach that aims to generate market-rate returns while demonstrating positive environmental and social impact, has become quite popular in recent years. But The Lily Group did not jump on the impact investment bandwagon. They navigated its covered wagon. True pioneers in the movement to invest according to your values and convictions, they have blazed a trail that clearly shows making money is not always driven by greed. Sometimes it is driven by awareness, responsibility, advocacy, ethics, environmentalism, and humanity. These women have been working to prove that making money and making a difference are not mutually exclusive since the days of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. At that time, The Lily Group took a stance by consciously divesting from South African gold funds when major players were determined to invest in gold. And although divestment was just one weapon in the battle against Apartheid, it was an effective one that played its role in bringing such injustice to an end. From the beginning of the gay rights movement, The Lily Group has leveraged their clients' voices as shareholders to help push the recognition of domestic partnerships. Ask them and they will tell you that June 26, 2013, the day the Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of same-sex marriage on a federal scale, is one of their proudest. The list goes on. In the last year alone, they have worked with their clients through socially responsible investing to support measurable minimum wage reforms, create corporate commitment to sustainable sourcing of natural resources and renewable energy, help end slave labor and improve working conditions in the supply chain, reduce the gender wage gap and increase workplace and boardroom diversity. Given the power and influence business is going to have moving forward in the new political landscape, taking up the battle for justice, conservation and equality in the boardrooms will be essential. Beyond financially supporting social responsibility, your impact investment dollars can help shape social and environmental initiatives and corporate behavior through proxy voting and drafting shareholder initiatives. Your money has power. Even if you don't have a lot of it. The Lily Group requires no minimum investment. And beyond that, as of 2014, there are over 925 distinct funds that adhere to strong positive Environmental, Social and Governance criteria with asset minimums starting under three hundred dollars. But don't consider impact investing just because it is good for the world. Do it because it is good for you personally as well. According to the world economic forum, impact investing has grown from 12 million to over 400 billion in the last decade. A meteoric rise in behavior like this in the financial world happens for only one reason: Because it makes money. Impact investing is a smart and savvy way to create financial security. Companies that are considered leaders in socially responsible policies are leading the pack in stock performance by an average of 25% over the long term. And other studies show socially responsible investing has outperformed the S&P 500 for decades. Individually, we can make a difference. As groups, our power grows. Take for example the millennial generation. This particular group is about to receive one of the largest transfers of wealth in modern history. A projected $30 trillion in financial and non-financial assets will pass down from Baby Boomers to their heirs in North America alone. This kind of money, when invested with the help of professionals focused on positive impact and deserving of our trust, has the potential to put Wall Street in a position to help defend those of us living on Main Street. Like I said, we can often find allies where we least expect them. -- 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.

03 декабря, 01:23

Sen. Heitkamp mum on possible Cabinet job after Trump meeting

Heitkamp is considered a potential pick to head Trump’s Agriculture, Energy, or Interior Departments.

02 декабря, 15:00

What to Do When You’re the Target of a Hurtful Office Rumor

When Caroline moved to a new city to take on a job at a company she was thrilled to join, she was surprised when she had a hard time building friendships and positive relationships with her colleagues. A few months down the road, she found out why: Someone from her previous company had falsely told one of her new colleagues that Caroline tries to get others to do her work for her. Workplace gossip like this can have devastating consequences.  We tend to have a strong negativity bias: almost all of us pay more attention to negative information than we do to positive information. Think about the last time you posted something to Facebook, for example, and got a string of enthusiastic comments followed by a single, stinging rebuke – which comment did you focus on? We react similarly to information about others. Research by Stanford University professor Rob Willer shows that we take negative gossip about others seriously. We view it as useful information that can protect us.  The result — if someone spreads false rumors about you — is that it’s hard to shake off that reputation. Not only can this experience damage your professional opportunities, it can be extremely stressful on a personal level. So what are some steps you can take if this has happened to you? Some people think that being a considerate colleague and friendly collaborator can protect you. While this is true in most cases (research shows that being a respectful and kind colleague leads to wonderful professional results for you and your organization), you are not completely immune — you can still be prey to jealousy or envy regardless. If you are facing hurtful rumors at work, you’ll need to use skills of emotional intelligence to avoid making the situation any worse – and ideally, to make the situation better. 1) Regulate your negative emotions. There is only so much you can do about the situations you face, but there is a lot you can do about how you respond to it. Many people initially respond with feelings of horror, anger, anxiety or even helplessness when confronted with negative gossip about them. Especially when rumors are false, as in Caroline’s case, you feel trapped in an unfair situation. As a result of these feelings, however, you can lose motivation and succumb to the negative effects of stress or become angry. “Taking a moment to step back from these situations [and] simply label your emotions can be very helpful in managing emotions,” says Marc Brackett, Director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. Use the calming strategies that work best for you: breathing, mindfulness, unplugging from work, working out or taking walks. Give yourself time to cool off. Chances are you will come up with a far more constructive solution to the problem once the emotions have died down. 2) Expand your perspective. The idea behind cooling off is to help you regain your sense of proportion. Johann Berlin, CEO of TLEX Institute, observes that “because these kinds of situations seem unfair, you feel powerless and can lose sight of the big picture. You either want to fight or you shut down. In other words, you’re either angry or you’re depressed or ashamed. That’s when you need to step back and ask yourself what does success means to you in that moment? Does it mean winning? Or does it mean regaining that feeling of power and confidence?” We know from research that negative emotions like stress or feeling down are associated with a narrower perspective and a tendency toward self-focus — in other words, you’re perception is skewed. We all know we’re not at our best when we’re feeling upset. In order to figure out a constructive solution, we need to snap out of a negative mindset. 3) Practice self-compassion – and even forgiveness. “During those difficult moments, you can feel like you’re in a dark place and there’s no way out, but cultivating forgiveness and compassion, soft as these terms may sound, can actually be highly effective,” Berlin recommends. Research supports the idea that when you forgiven someone, the person who benefits most is yourself. Forgiveness can help you move on, improves your well-being, your health, and generally lightens your step. You and Your Team Series Office Politics Make Your Enemies Your Allies Brian Uzzi and Shannon Dunlap Why We Fight at Work Annie McKee How to Manage a Toxic Employee Amy Gallo Being able to cultivate forgiveness and even compassion for the gossip perpetrator, in Caroline’s case, actually helped free her from her negative feelings. As a result, she experienced renewed energy to prove herself – regardless of wagging tongues.  She was able to come up with creative new ways of building relationships and demonstrating her work ethic in her new workplace. “Of course, when you’re really upset, it’s hard to generate positive feelings. That’s where exercises like yoga, breathing and meditation, that calm you down, can help you get your bearings so you’re ready for a fresh start,” Berlin points out. 4) De-identify from the situation. Recognize that the situation is not necessarily a reflection of you. Michael Kraus, Assistant Professor at Yale University School of Management, points out the importance of de-identifying from the situation: “The most important thing to realize for people dealing with these kinds of problem behaviors is that they aren’t about you–they are actually the behavior of someone who is nervous and anxious about their position within an organization. People lash out, gossip, and snipe at others to protect their fragile selves. They tear you down to make themselves look slightly better by comparison.” That said, you do need to be honest with yourself. As Willer points out, “sometimes people are the deserving victims of negative gossip, but don’t perceive it that way.” It’s important to probe into whether there is truth in what is being said. 5) Consider how to respond. If you know who is behind the rumors, Willer suggests that, however challenging or awkward it may feel to do so, “you can offer your perspective to the ‘lead gossip.’ If you honestly explain your perspective on the gossip, and the personal pain that has been caused to you by the gossip, you may be able to change that persons’ perspective.” Here again, it is important to de-identify from the situation and regulate your emotions. As Willer points out, “Critical here is to approach the person in a sympathetic, nonconfrontational way, so that you can win their sympathies.” You want to speak to them from a place that is cool and collected. Caroline reached out to colleagues at her former workplace in order to understand where this gossip could have come from, but could not identify the source. In cases like these, Willer suggests that you “enlist friends or trusted acquaintances who give your side of the story to very frankly and reasonably counteract the gossip.” 6) Give it time. Remember that time is on your side. Kraus advises that, “as the victim you should play the long game. You have a reputation that is built on a large body of work across many co-workers. One inconsistent bit of sabotage could be harmful in the short-term, but the long term is likely to bear out a different picture of your work.” Willer also suggests performing and acting with high integrity and letting your actions speak for you. 7) Focus on what’s going right. We know that the mind clings to the negative — but research also shows us that 3 times more positive things happen to us than negative things every day. At any given time, a lot of things are going right in our lives. Either in our career or in our personal lives. It could be that you enjoy what you do at work, are grateful for the paycheck, or appreciate your organization’s values or benefits. It could be the joy you derive from your family, hobbies, sports, or community service. When we savor our experiences, we derive more pleasure and satisfaction from them. Spending time enjoying and feeling grateful for what is going right in your life will help you weather the rest. Caroline spent hours every week devoted to a community service activity from which she derived the joy and strength with which to face her other challenges. 8) Remember that you are not alone. The most challenging aspect of going through a difficult experience is the sense of being alone in it. Kraus reminds is that “this behavior is likely chronic across the organization, and so you’re not alone in dealing with it–other people are experiencing something similar to you, and so you have potential alliances with colleagues that can be built around this behavior.” Caroline later found out that her new organization actually had a serious cultural climate issue. A climate survey showed that most employees were highly disgruntled with the leadership and were generally unhappy. The politics she had found herself in were a reflection of a much larger organizational issue. It’s really hard to be the subject of a negative office rumor, particularly one that has no basis in reality. You can’t always control what other people say about you – but you can control how you respond.

02 декабря, 02:28

Jeff Sessions: The Fight Against Climate Change Hurts Poor People

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Department of Justice, argued last year that the fight against climate change is a conspiracy to afflict poor people. In a November 2015 interview with a conservative Christian lobbying group’s in-house podcast, Sessions said investing trillions into clean energy does “almost nothing” to fight global warming and makes it harder for people in poor countries to afford electricity, according to audio obtained Thursday by The Huffington Post. The interview, which has since been removed from Family Research Council’s website, took place as world leaders gathered in Paris for the United Nations climate conference that yielded the historic climate agreement Trump now threatens to unravel. “Just think of a person out in a village,” Sessions told the show’s host, FRC President Tony Perkins. “Somebody once said a lifespan of a person in a society where electricity is readily available is twice that where it’s not.” “We don’t need to be driving up the cost and making it harder for poor people to have the sort of things we take for granted here,” he added. He appears to be suggesting that deals to support solar and wind energy infrastructure prevent developing countries from using cheap fossil fuels to produce affordable electricity, too.  Ahead of the climate conference, President Barack Obama pledged to spend $3 billion over five years to support a U.N.-administered Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries build up renewable energy infrastructure and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The fund has been instrumental in convincing less-developed countries, which have been dependent on heavily polluting fuels like coal to grow their economies, to agree to cut back on greenhouse gases. “A huge part of this is that the United States is expected to send billions of dollars around the globe to fund energy projects in poorer countries,” Sessions said. “We are a generous nation. We do a lot to help the poor. We have missionaries and we have government programs that send out billions of dollars.” FRC did not immediately respond to questions about why the interview was removed from its website. The Republican-controlled Congress approved the first $500 million payment installment to the Green Climate Fund last December. But that amount is still expected to fall short of what emerging economies need to develop without reliance on fossil fuels ― and as the global poverty charity Oxfam put it, the Paris deal “failed to include meaningful mechanisms” to guarantee financial support for poorer countries adapting to global warming. Just 16 percent of the $100 billion a year pledged by rich countries in 2009 to help poorer countries deal with climate change has been paid, the report said. Poorer countries are often closer to the equator and disproportionately feel the effects of climate change. The number of impoverished people will grow from 702 million to 900 million by 2030, according to a 2015 World Bank report. When global warming factors in, that number increases to more than 1 billion, due largely to spikes in food prices as farmers struggle to adapt to climate change.  But Sessions said that even the relatively little money the U.S. commits to addressing climate change abroad would be better spent supporting victims of terrorist attacks or infectious diseases. “It’s one thing to give money to people who survive attacks by ISIS, to be able to avoid malaria and tuberculosis,” Sessions said. “It’s another to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to try to fight this global warming that we’re not even sure exists.” Sessions, like many in the far-right wing of the Republican Party, has long denied scientific evidence of humans’ role in climate change. His routine votes against legislation to protect the environment earned him a paltry 4 percent last year on the League of Conservation Voters’ scorecard. In March 2015, while attempting to downplay the threat of global warming, he quizzed Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy on her knowledge of cherry-picked weather and climate trends in what The Washington Post described as a “cringe-inducing … series of ‘gotchas.’” During the interview, Sessions repeated some of those claims, including that fewer major hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S. in recent years. “The predictions aren’t coming true,” he said, ignoring the increase in violent hurricanes and typhoons around the world. “The prediction was we’d have more hurricanes and more devastation.” That may have enhanced his appeal to the incoming administration. Trump has repeatedly called climate change “a hoax” and “a bunch of bunk” fabricated by the Chinese government to dupe the U.S. into making its manufacturing sector less competitive. He signaled his willingness to pull the country out of the Paris agreement, prompting threats of carbon tariffs on U.S. goods, and vowed to shred the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s chief tool for reducing carbon emissions. Later in the FRC interview, Sessions suggested efforts to build clean energy projects in developing countries make it harder to expand their electricity grids. He further insisted that such projects, because they are attached to an international accord, are part of an attack on national sovereignty. “We as decent, good American people need to ask ourselves, should we burden people all over the world, and deny them electricity and cheap energy, in order to follow this theory that I do think, Tony, has a world government background to it?” Sessions, whose state is currently suffering a historic drought. “More and more world government that I think is not healthy for the United States.” A spokesperson for Sessions and the presidential transition team did not respond to a request for comment.  -- 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.

02 декабря, 02:28

Jeff Sessions: The Fight Against Climate Change Hurts Poor People

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Department of Justice, argued last year that the fight against climate change is a conspiracy to afflict poor people. In a November 2015 interview with a conservative Christian lobbying group’s in-house podcast, Sessions said investing trillions into clean energy does “almost nothing” to fight global warming and makes it harder for people in poor countries to afford electricity, according to audio obtained Thursday by The Huffington Post. The interview, which has since been removed from Family Research Council’s website, took place as world leaders gathered in Paris for the United Nations climate conference that yielded the historic climate agreement Trump now threatens to unravel. “Just think of a person out in a village,” Sessions told the show’s host, FRC President Tony Perkins. “Somebody once said a lifespan of a person in a society where electricity is readily available is twice that where it’s not.” “We don’t need to be driving up the cost and making it harder for poor people to have the sort of things we take for granted here,” he added. He appears to be suggesting that deals to support solar and wind energy infrastructure prevent developing countries from using cheap fossil fuels to produce affordable electricity, too.  Ahead of the climate conference, President Barack Obama pledged to spend $3 billion over five years to support a U.N.-administered Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries build up renewable energy infrastructure and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The fund has been instrumental in convincing less-developed countries, which have been dependent on heavily polluting fuels like coal to grow their economies, to agree to cut back on greenhouse gases. “A huge part of this is that the United States is expected to send billions of dollars around the globe to fund energy projects in poorer countries,” Sessions said. “We are a generous nation. We do a lot to help the poor. We have missionaries and we have government programs that send out billions of dollars.” FRC did not immediately respond to questions about why the interview was removed from its website. The Republican-controlled Congress approved the first $500 million payment installment to the Green Climate Fund last December. But that amount is still expected to fall short of what emerging economies need to develop without reliance on fossil fuels ― and as the global poverty charity Oxfam put it, the Paris deal “failed to include meaningful mechanisms” to guarantee financial support for poorer countries adapting to global warming. Just 16 percent of the $100 billion a year pledged by rich countries in 2009 to help poorer countries deal with climate change has been paid, the report said. Poorer countries are often closer to the equator and disproportionately feel the effects of climate change. The number of impoverished people will grow from 702 million to 900 million by 2030, according to a 2015 World Bank report. When global warming factors in, that number increases to more than 1 billion, due largely to spikes in food prices as farmers struggle to adapt to climate change.  But Sessions said that even the relatively little money the U.S. commits to addressing climate change abroad would be better spent supporting victims of terrorist attacks or infectious diseases. “It’s one thing to give money to people who survive attacks by ISIS, to be able to avoid malaria and tuberculosis,” Sessions said. “It’s another to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to try to fight this global warming that we’re not even sure exists.” Sessions, like many in the far-right wing of the Republican Party, has long denied scientific evidence of humans’ role in climate change. His routine votes against legislation to protect the environment earned him a paltry 4 percent last year on the League of Conservation Voters’ scorecard. In March 2015, while attempting to downplay the threat of global warming, he quizzed Environmental Protection Agency chief Gina McCarthy on her knowledge of cherry-picked weather and climate trends in what The Washington Post described as a “cringe-inducing … series of ‘gotchas.’” During the interview, Sessions repeated some of those claims, including that fewer major hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S. in recent years. “The predictions aren’t coming true,” he said, ignoring the increase in violent hurricanes and typhoons around the world. “The prediction was we’d have more hurricanes and more devastation.” That may have enhanced his appeal to the incoming administration. Trump has repeatedly called climate change “a hoax” and “a bunch of bunk” fabricated by the Chinese government to dupe the U.S. into making its manufacturing sector less competitive. He signaled his willingness to pull the country out of the Paris agreement, prompting threats of carbon tariffs on U.S. goods, and vowed to shred the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s chief tool for reducing carbon emissions. Later in the FRC interview, Sessions suggested efforts to build clean energy projects in developing countries make it harder to expand their electricity grids. He further insisted that such projects, because they are attached to an international accord, are part of an attack on national sovereignty. “We as decent, good American people need to ask ourselves, should we burden people all over the world, and deny them electricity and cheap energy, in order to follow this theory that I do think, Tony, has a world government background to it?” Sessions, whose state is currently suffering a historic drought. “More and more world government that I think is not healthy for the United States.” A spokesperson for Sessions and the presidential transition team did not respond to a request for comment.  -- 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.

01 декабря, 22:19

How Bad Will Donald Trump Be For Renewable Energy?

There are varying opinions of Donald Trump’s likely effect on the growth of renewable energy in the U.S. The pace of renewables growth will be affected by numerous separate policy decisions, but President-elect Trump's stance on renewables could likely reduce progress.

01 декабря, 19:16

Why Regulations Can Be Good

This is the second in a series of posts exploring some of the things that must change in government and society to fix America. Republican leaders in Congress and conservative think tanks are drawing up their lists of federal regulations they want President Trump to help them kill once he takes office. Judging by his campaign platform Trump is eager to cooperate. He has promised to "reform the entire regulatory code" and to issue a moratorium on new government rules that are not required by law. Trump believes that government regulations "force jobs out of our communities" and punish Americans for doing business in the United States. "We will no longer regulate our companies and our jobs out of existence," he has said. Are there unnecessary or unnecessarily burdensome regulations? Undoubtedly. Do we want government controlling our lives? No. But some regulations are necessary to save our lives. Many actually create jobs, are wanted by business, advance important national goals and are necessary to protect the American people from the bad actors in our society. The benefits of good government rules have been obvious for generations. Without laws like the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act two years later, and without the regulations that implemented them, we would have a much dirtier and sicker country. Rivers would still be catching fire, more oil spills would be killing oceans, fish would be inedible because of toxins in their flesh, many more of our children would get sick or die from asthma caused by air pollution, cancer would be as common as the common cold, our water would be unsafe to drink and every day would be a bad-air day. Before President Trump begins killing regulations (almost as complicated as creating them), he should weigh their benefits and costs case by case. Here are a few things he should consider specifically in regard to regulations on business and industry, the most common source of complaints that the government handcuffs job creation. First, to put things in context, there are more than 22.6 million businesses in the United States. Nearly three of every four are small enterprises, the biggest source of new jobs but also the firms that because of limited resources may have the hardest time complying with government rules. Depending on the nature of their enterprises, they must deal with rules that range from worker safety to the quality of our food. It's fair to say that relatively few companies are knowingly engaged in practices that hurt people or the environment. But not all companies are good corporate citizens. Many regulations, including most of those involving environmental protection, are a result of industries failing to regulate themselves. Industries could monitor their "own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a third-party entity monitor and enforce those standards." But history is filled with examples of corporations that put social responsibility far down their priority lists, if it is on their lists at all. Their first priorities of course are profit, shareholder returns and competitive advantage. But in pursuit of those goals, some companies engage in practices that are socially irresponsible, if not dangerous. Prominent examples today are the powerful companies that produce and burn fossil fuels. We now know that the pollution from fossil fuel combustion has saturated the atmosphere to the point that the Earth's climate is changing in seriously dangerous ways. Oil and gas companies could be making the transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy not only to limit climate change, but also to become leaders in the rapidly growing clean energy sector. Instead and in general, the oil and gas industry is sticking to its old business model of pulling as much product out of the ground as possible. While the companies profit, millions of Americans already are being hurt by climate change and countless generations to come will continue to bear the cost of drought, fire, floods and other disasters. In a perfect society, companies, like doctors, would commit to doing no harm. Their business model would be to profit from activities that are consistent with the public good. There are many companies that adhere to a kind of corporate hypocratic oath. More than 200 corporate CEOs representing 19 million employees worldwide are members of the World Council on Sustainable Development, for example. One of their projects is to have businesses use fuels that contain 50% less carbon, a strategy to grow the global market for clean and sustainable energy. More than 80 U.S. companies, including many of our largest, have promised to switch to 100% renewable energy. Smart corporate leaders actually welcome reasonable regulation, although they may not admit it in public. Regulations ensure that each company and its competitors operate on the proverbial level playing field. Otherwise, clean companies that pay for pollution prevention would not be able to compete with dirty companies that don't. Regulations prevent bad actors from damaging the reputation of their industries and jeopardizing their "social license to operate". Several of the regulations that reportedly are on the chopping block are focused on the natural gas industry, a sector whose production is booming at the same time some of its practices - fracking and methane leaks for example - are controversial. The Center for the New Energy Economy (CNEE) at Colorado State University has held annual conferences with leaders of the oil and gas industry to discuss issues like these. CNEE reports that: Reasonable and effective regulation is important to natural gas producers because it creates business planning certainty; screens out the "bad actors"; reduces the chances that companies within the energy sector will obtain unfair advantage by engaging in irresponsible practices; and strengthens the industry's "social license to operate" - i.e., public trust that energy is being produced in ways that are consistent with public health, welfare and quality of life. The National Petroleum Council (NPC) concurs: Achieving the economic, environmental and energy security benefits of North American natural gas and oil supplies requires responsible approaches to resource production and delivery...(I)n all locales and conditions, the critical path to sustained and expanded resource development in North America includes effective regulation and a commitment of industry and regulators to continuous improvement in practices to eliminate or minimize environmental risk. Second, federal regulations are not created by fiat. There is no secret back room in which federal control freaks plot to regulate business. Most rules are the result of laws passed by the people's representatives in Congress. Each proposed new rule must go through an arduous process of public and legal review before it can become final. Proposed rules are scrutinized for their costs and benefits to the American people. Once they are finalized, they are routinely challenged by lawsuits that further test their legality. Third, regulations can create jobs. For example, federal rules that require companies to repair environmental damage have resulted in a "restoration industry" in the United States. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have determined that these rules support more than 220,000 jobs and $25 billion in economic activity. This restoration economy provides more direct jobs today than coal mining, logging or steel production. Finally, most Americans support environmental regulation. The Pew Research Center reported earlier this year that while opinions vary from state to state, 59% of American adults nationwide say that stricter environmental regulations are worth the cost. That's not to say that conservatives and progressive all agree. Weeks before the election, Pew found a deep divide between Trump and Clinton supporters when it came to regulating carbon pollution. But perhaps the divide is a result of the bad rap that government regulations routinely receive and often do not deserve. It would be a wonderful world if every American and every American company operated by the "do no harm" principle. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. -- 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.

01 декабря, 18:17

Ormat (ORA) Unit Inks PPA for California Geothermal Complex

Ormat Technologies, Inc. (ORA) announced that one of its affiliate has signed a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA)

01 декабря, 04:49

Morocco Continues Renewable Push with 100% Pledge

Playing host to the COP22 talks in Marrakech this year, Morocco continued its green energy development push by joining in on a pledge to meet 100% of its domestic electricity needs with local renewable energy production as "rapidly as possible."

Выбор редакции
30 ноября, 18:54

Lichtblick mulls strategic options, has talked to Enel -sources

FRANKFURT/MILAN, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Lichtblick, Germany's largest independent supplier of renewable energy, is looking at strategic options for its business and has talked to Italy's Enel about a possible sale, several people familiar with the matter said.

30 ноября, 13:19

How Donald Trump should handle climate policy

Despite earlier threats to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and overturn domestic emissions rules, President-elect Donald Trump last week suggested he had an “open mind” on climate change policy. While skepticism about his ultimate intentions is justified, Trump and his team appear divided on how to approach the issue of climate change, fearing a conservative backlash if he addresses the topic and the global consequences if he takes no action.Instead of choosing one side or the other, Trump should “triangulate” between Republican and Democratic policies. This independent approach to climate protection would acknowledge the veracity of basic climate science and the government’s role in incentivizing emissions reductions but also involve relaxing some Obama-era regulations hated by the right. Such actions would garner support — and some opposition — from liberals and conservatives alike, a classic middle-of-the-road tactic. The political and policy payoff for such boldness could be transformative, helping to improve Trump’s dubious reputation with key audiences, at home and abroad, not to mention helping the climate itself. The question is: Does Trump have the vision and political imagination to capture this opportunity? If he does, it’s possible to sketch out a potential path by looking at policies that both sides have supported — and that align with Trump’s own campaign goals. This would start with retaining a number of existing policies that earn a spot for their profound economic benefits alone. For example, federal fuel economy standards on cars and trucks gained support from President George W. Bush in 2007 due to consumers and business savings of hundreds of billions each year and reductions in U.S. reliance on foreign oil. The current regulations are due for a midprogram review by 2018 to set the 2022-25 rules. While eliminating the standards would be a big mistake, the review gives Trump an opportunity to work with the industry to reduce their costs to auto companies. As for the Clean Power Plan, Trump will undoubtedly attempt to water down these regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from electricity power plants, another action that will please conservatives. But the fate of the plan will largely lie with the judiciary, with an appeals court decision due early next year, a Supreme Court review all but certain and additional litigation likely after Trump promulgates his version of the rules. Most importantly, Trump has many new energy policy options that are consistent with his promises. Take his pledges to help the coal industry. Trump could throw his full support behind carbon capture, utilization and storage technology that can safely and permanently capture and sequester emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, from coal plants, natural gas facilities, and industrial sources. Such technology can provide a big boost to coal and help climate protection, as well. For years it has been clear that CCUS would be needed to make coal (and eventually natural gas) more viable in an inevitably carbon-constrained market. But most Republicans wanted to attack climate change policies as a campaign issue to score points on Democrats, while many “greener than thou” Democrats wanted only to fund renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Now, a coalition of major coal companies and respected environmental groups has emerged supporting legislation to extend federal tax credits to support wide-scale commercial deployment of CCUS. The pending bills are finally picking up strong support from key Republicans, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who want greater coal use. And many of the smartest climate-conscious Democrats, like Sheldon Whitehouse and Michael Bennet, support the technology because numerous studies show that the deep cuts in global emissions needed to prevent overwhelming temperature increases will almost certainly require the capture of emissions from fossil fuel plants and industrial sources, both at home and abroad. Trump has other options to boost low-emissions technology, including support for nuclear plants that need relicensing, but that many liberals don’t realize account for two-thirds of U.S. zero-emissions electricity. And an emerging class of advanced, less expensive, pre-fabricated nuclear reactors being developed by U.S. companies could add significantly to our energy options and expand a dynamic U.S.-based manufacturing industry. These reactors have much safer designs, and many produce lower volumes of less toxic waste and pose less of a security risk. Another area of opportunity is the recently concluded Kigali Amendment to phase out HFCs, chemicals used in refrigeration that are thousands of times more powerful than CO2 per ton in producing warming but for which U.S. industry has created substitutes. Trump could support the phase out of these super greenhouse gases, including possible Senate ratification of the Kigali Amendment, with the full support of the industry and garner much needed international support, as well. The underlying treaty, the Montreal Protocol, was negotiated under President Ronald Reagan and has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Finally, Trump can support larger R&D investment into breakthrough energy technologies that have generally enjoyed the backing of both parties because of their long-term boost to U.S. economic competitiveness. These include electricity storage that will allow long-term transition from fossil fuels at lower long-term prices. In each of these areas, the affected industries support key federal policy incentives, but have faced Republican resistance simply because of false climate science questions. Yet, in pursuing these and other “no harm” policies, Trump will be aiding climate protection in ways most Republicans can live with. Many Republicans would rather Trump simply ignore climate change. But doing so would impose high political, diplomatic and especially economic costs on the American people and the president-elect. At home, the costs of extreme weather events caused in part by climate change are huge and growing, and increasingly exacerbate federal deficits and debt. A report released last week by the Office of Management and Budget warns of billions of additional costs related to wildfires, crop insurance, sea-level rise and federal health care, consuming as much as 15 percent of total federal discretionary spending by late century. As president, Trump will be responsible for responding to extreme weather damages in the tens of billions of dollars each year, just as science, like a recent a National Academy of Science report, shows increasing causality involving climate change. Internationally, leaders around the world have condemned Trump’s previous denials of climate change science and his threats to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or the entire U.N. climate process, begun under President George H.W. Bush. While Trump and his advisers might not realize it, climate change action has become a key measure of international moral and diplomatic standing. China, India, the EU, and African and South American nations, and others believe that climate protection is fundamental to their security and economic health. And, as conservative commentators like Bill O’Reilly have noted, formally withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement will only antagonize our allies whom Trump will need on other issues, while providing no benefit to the U.S. More broadly, military and security officials in major nations are concerned that climate change has the potential to destabilize whole countries and regions. As in the Cold War, efforts to address security risks from climate change should be bipartisan. In short, the costs of these suggested policies are quite low, while the price of inaction — for the American people and Trump’s presidency — are much higher. This basic calculus should lead the president-elect toward an independent, serious approach to climate change that will break with some Obama-era climate policies but still make progress. Such an effort would have major political benefits for Trump, both in the U.S. and across the world and be far better for the climate than a scorched earth approach. But make no mistake: If he tries to obfuscate the issue, or allows climate science to be manipulated, Trump will not only be on the wrong side of history, but soon enough, he will find himself on the wrong side of the American people, as well. Paul Bledsoe, an independent energy and climate consultant, has worked on the staffs of the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Senate Finance Committee and the Clinton White House Climate Change Task Force.

30 ноября, 00:25

6 ‘Rogue One’ Secrets We Learned From the ‘Catalyst’ Novel

The recently-released 'Rogue One' novel reveals all sorts of details about what we can expect from the film. Here's what we learned.

29 ноября, 18:11

Oxford Club Radio: David Fessler on Energy Stocks and Infrastructure Investment Post-Election

This week, Marc interviews Energy and Infrastructure Strategist Dave Fessler about the post-election outlook for energy stocks and infrastructure investment.

29 ноября, 17:02

Shell (RDS.A) Plans to Divest Its Oil Holdings in Iraq

Per reports recently published on Reuters, integrated energy major Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A) is considering exiting its positions in Iraqi oil fields.

29 ноября, 01:13

Oilmen, pro-development financiers and Sarah Palin in the queue for Interior

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been mentioned as a possible Interior Secretary. But pretty much all the names floating around for that post would make the oil and gas industry happy. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) BY: SOO RIN KIM While names were announced for a slew of appointments to President-elect Donald Trump's administration last week, there are still some significant posts left -- like running the Interior Department, which is in charge of wildlife and natural resources. Oil execs and other pro-development types seem to be the leading contenders here, meaning it's likely that the department will be taking a drastic shift away from its focus of the last few years on conservation and renewable energy. Robert E. Grady: The former George H.W. Bush speechwriter and policy advisor who ran the Office of Management and Budget's unit on natural resources, energy and science, Grady is best known in the environmental world for his key role in negotiating amendments to push through the Clean Air Act of 1990. Though the administration championed the law for reining in acid rain and toxic pollutants, environmental groups argued that some of the administration's provisions blunted its effect. Currently a partner at private equity fund Gryphon Investors, Grady has donated a relatively modest $218,667 to federal politicians, including $5,400 to Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), $1,500 each to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his leadership PAC and $1,000 to Trump this year. In 2012, he donated $7,500 to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and $35,000 his joint fundraising committee. Grady is also a longtime aide to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and a former chairman of the New Jersey Investment Council, overseeing the $81 billion public pension fund. Grady's name has also surfaced to run the Energy Department or the Environmental Protection Agency. Forrest Lucas: The sponsor of a number of racing events who also won naming rights to the Indianapolis Colts' home stadium, the founder and president of Lucas Oil is a familiar face in his home state Indiana. His appointment would be widely hailed by the oil and gas industry, which has battled conservationists in the Obama administration. Employees of Lucas Oil Products (including Lucas himself) have donated a total of $965,486 since 2002 to federal candidates and committees; this year's biggest beneficiary was GOP Indiana Rep. Marlin Stutzman, who had an unfruitful senatorial campaign. The Indiana oilman has also taken on a big role protecting farmers, ranchers and outdoor enthusiasts from threats posed by "animal rights groups" and "anti-farming extremists," such as the Humane Society of the United States. His 501(c)(4) nonprofit group Protect the Harvest is a driving force of the anti-animal rights effort, spending nearly $1.9 million since 2010. The social welfare group has laid out $246,297 for federal political ads in the past two election cycles, including $53,500 supporting Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) this year. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Missouri Pork PAC, Missouri Cattlemen Association and Missouri Pork Producers are among the top donors to the nonprofit, and Lucas himself has given it $298,000. Lucas and his wife Charlotte Lucas, who co-founded Lucas Oil, have donated a total of $752,272 over the years, including $197,054 this cycle. Trump's joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory Fund, got $25,000 of that. Two years ago, Lucas took out a full-page ad in the Indianapolis Star apologizing for a Facebook post by his wife that read, "I'm sick and tired of minorities running our country! As far as I'm concerned, I don't think that atheists (minority), muslims (minority)n or any other minority group has the right to tell the majority of the people in the United States what they can and cannot do here." In the apology, Lucas said his wife's comments were "harsh and insensitive," although he said she did not intend to offend anyone. Harold G. Hamm: The Continental Resources chief executive who just became the 54th richest person in the world with personal net worth of $15.4 billion, Hamm was a key energy policy advisor to Romney four years ago and has played a similar role for Team Trump this year. He was the mastermind in shaping Trump's campaign pledge to revive the Keystone XL oil pipeline project with TransCanada -- rejected by Obama last year -- with the condition that North Dakota oil get a bigger share of space in the pipeline. Hamm's Continental Resources is a major player in the North Dakota oil scene. Also being considered for the Energy Department spot, the man Trump calls the "king of energy," holds the view that the U.S. has abundant oil  "abundance" view on the oil reserve issue, and has criticized Obama's focus on domestic renewable energy as indirect support for Islamic terrorism by making the United States rely on Middle Eastern oil. The fracking mogul and his wife Sue Ann Hamm have donated nearly $1.9 million to federal candidates and committees over the years, including $5,000 to Romney's campaign and $985,000 to pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future in 2012. This year, he donated $5,400 to Ryan, $2,600 to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and $1,000 to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), as well as $5,400 to Trump. Meanwhile, tensions have fired up in North Dakota as demonstrators clash with the police over the contested Dakota Access Pipeline, which is expected to carry oil obtained from fracking by Hamm's Continental Resources. Trump himself was deeply involved in the pipeline, having invested between $500,000 and $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners, the key player in the project, Trump's financial disclosure report from May 2015 showed. And CEO Kelcy Warren has returned the favor by donating $3,000 to the Trump campaign this year and an additional $100,000 to his joint fundraising committee. Trump dropped most of his investment in the company this summer, leaving only $50,000. Sarah Palin: The former Alaska governor might be a long shot for Interior, but the presence of her name on the list is attracting mega-attention nationwide. Putting aside all other controversies revolving around her, we can safely assume which direction the Interior Department would head under Palin: "Drill, baby, drill." (Wolves, among other animals, might not be thrilled with the appointment, either.) The energy and natural resources sector, led by the oil industry, was Palin's main financial  supporter at the beginning of her state political career in 2002. In the 2006 gubernatorial election, though government employees and individuals from the finance sector topped her donors list, the energy and natural resources sector lead by commercial fishing and oil and gas industries played a key role in her victory. Palin pushed through oil and natural gas development plans during her time in office, including controversial drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; she also signed legislation to grant a pipeline contract to TransCanada. The construction project was cancelled in 2014 after research showed it was inefficient. After the unsuccessful presidential campaign with GOP candidate John McCain in 2008, Palin resigned from the office and started SarahPAC. The political action committee has spent a total of $14.8 million over the last four election cycles. This year, the PAC spent about $2.1 million, just $72,500 of which went to federal candidates, including $5,000 to Trump. Nearly $900,000 was spent by the PAC on fundraising. Ray Washburne: CNBC reported last week that Washburne, a Dallas investor who is currently leading the Trump transition team on commerce, could be next in charge of the country's federal land and natural resources. Washburn was vice chairman of the 2016 Trump Victory Fund and a former Republican National Committee chair. Individuals from his company Charter Holdings, involved in real estate, restaurants, private equity and energy investments, have donated a total of $517,000 to Republican candidates over last three election cycles. This includes Washburne's $2,700 to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and another $5,400 to Texas Rep. Pete Sessions this cycle. Overall, the Texas investor and his wife Heather Washburne contributed a total of $579,811 to Republican candidates and the Republican party. Robert B. Gillam: The Alaska investor is the latest addition to the rumored interior secretary list according to the Alaska Dispatch Publishing. Having graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania with Trump in 1968, Gillam said in a statement, "I recognized that suddenly it was possible for me to serve in a role that has otherwise been one of career politicians." Unlike his rivals for the slot, Gillam's federal political contributions over the years have been bipartisan. The millionaire financier made his single biggest donation in 2010, when he donated $50,000 to Alaskans Standing Together, a super PAC that spent $1.8 million to secure Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's seat in Alaska. He has given $28,250 to national Republican party committees and $23,550 to GOP candidates -- but has also donated $37,000 to the Democratic Party of Alaska and $14,300 to Democratic candidates. During the 2016 cycle, he sent $5,000 to GOP Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan's leadership PAC, True North PAC. Backed by the air transport and railroads industries as well as the Koch brothers, Sullivan's PAC gave $105,000 to Republican candidates including Ayotte, Blunt and Murkowski. -- 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.

28 ноября, 23:47

Does A Renewables Future Dim Under Trump?

With the world still up in arms over Donald Trump winning the United States election, more than ever, it’s time to understand where are the next, great energy investments under an entirely different energy philosophy. US Presidents make a difference, and with a stroke of a pen, President-elect Trump could usher in a new era of for fossil fuels while making it more difficult for renewable energy to thrive. Forecasting what Trump will and won’t do is going to make energy investing tougher than ever. One day he’s against climate…

28 ноября, 19:25

Top Ranked Momentum Stocks to Buy for November 28th

Top Ranked Momentum Stocks to Buy for November 28th

28 ноября, 16:14

Shell (RDS.A) Plans to Divest Onshore Properties in Gabon

Per reports published by Reuters, integrated energy major Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A) is in talks to divest its onshore operations in Gabon.

28 ноября, 14:51

Глава энергокомпании организовал схему Понци на Нью-Йоркской бирже

Комиссия по ценным бумагам и биржам (SEC) предъявила обвинение в мошенничестве четырем лицам из штата Калифорния, которые обманули инвесторов компании 808 Renewable Energy Corp.

28 ноября, 05:41

Pakistan Gets Serious About Renewable Energy

A newly completed wind farm in Gharo, Sindh Province, is one of a series under construction in Pakistan to reduce the country's serious energy deficit. Forty mammoth wind turbines generate 100 MW of electricity fed to the national grid. The country aims to achieve a 6% share of renewable energy in its total power mix by 2030. As a bonus, new roads servicing the coastal facility have proved a boon to local fishermen.

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