High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
The government’s flagship Help to Buy scheme could cause a sharp rise in mortgage fraud, according to one of the most senior policemen tackling economic crime.
The mortgage subsidy programme, the second phase of which started this month, could reignite a crime that has been declining as a result of tighter lending requirements, Detective Superintendent Oliver Shaw of the City of London Police said.
“Mortgage fraud is definitely on my radar,” he told a conference on Thursday. “We’ve seen fewer mortgage frauds recently because banks have been more careful about who they’re lending to but when Help to Buy goes live fully, that’s a huge vulnerability. We’re trying to change everyone’s mindset before it gets to the problem it was in 2009.”
Fraudulent brokers and solicitors were of particular concern, he later told the Financial Times.
The scheme has already been strongly criticised by economists, lenders and even the International Monetary Fund said it risked inflating house prices. These have begun to rise sharply this year, although growth has mainly been concentrated in London.
Mortgage fraud has crept upwards since 2006, according to statistics compiled by Experian. Last year, 38 of 10,000 mortgages were fraudulent, compared with 15 in 10,000 in 2006. Some commentators have attributed the rise to lenders being better at spotting applications that misstate income or poor credit history.
Help To Buy was announced by George Osborne, the chancellor, in this year’s budget. Its first stage offered equity loans of up to 20 per cent of the value of a new property.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Massive Wetlands Destruction Project Still Pending
The Obama Administration is facing mounting pressure to release an environmental analysis that could recommend building the controversial New Madrid Levee, a component of the St. John’s Bayou and New Madrid Floodway project in South East Missouri.
The pressure is coming from Missouri’s Sen. Blunt, who has placed a hold on President Obama’s nominee to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McCarthy, until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) publicly releases its newest environmental analysis for the project, called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The public release of the analysis has been delayed due to major differences between the USACE and the resource agencies (like EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) over the number of wetlands impacted and the adequacy of the mitigation plan to offset those impacts.
While Missouri landowners who farm in the New Madrid Floodway want to see this project move forward, pubic officials in Illinois and Kentucky (who fear the New Madrid Levee will complicate federal flood response) and environmentalists (who fear the New Madrid Levee will collapse the fishery of the Middle Mississippi River) are urging the Obama Administration to put an end to the project once and for all.
The New Madrid Floodway
The USACE has built thousands of miles of flood control levees on the Mississippi River. It has also built a few floodways—areas where the USACE diverts floodwaters to take pressure off of its levees. Shaded in red here is the New Madrid Floodway. The levees that surround the floodway, shown in red, are 60 feet high and totally surround the New Madrid Floodway, except for a quarter-mile gap at New Madrid. This quarter mile gap is the yellow “Outflow” line on the map. The most controversial element of the St. Johns Bayou New Madrid Floodway Project is a new proposed levee, come to be known as the New Madrid Levee, to close that quarter-mile gap.
For More Info Visit This Site: http://crowncapitalmngt.com/enmonitor.html
The pressure is coming from Missouri’s Sen. Blunt, who has placed a hold on President Obama’s nominee to run the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McCarthy, until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) publicly releases its newest environmental analysis for the project, called a Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The public release of the analysis has been delayed due to major differences between the USACE and the resource agencies (like EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) over the number of wetlands impacted and the adequacy of the mitigation plan to offset those impacts.
While Missouri landowners who farm in the New Madrid Floodway want to see this project move forward, pubic officials in Illinois and Kentucky (who fear the New Madrid Levee will complicate federal flood response) and environmentalists (who fear the New Madrid Levee will collapse the fishery of the Middle Mississippi River) are urging the Obama Administration to put an end to the project once and for all.
The New Madrid Floodway
The USACE has built thousands of miles of flood control levees on the Mississippi River. It has also built a few floodways—areas where the USACE diverts floodwaters to take pressure off of its levees. Shaded in red here is the New Madrid Floodway. The levees that surround the floodway, shown in red, are 60 feet high and totally surround the New Madrid Floodway, except for a quarter-mile gap at New Madrid. This quarter mile gap is the yellow “Outflow” line on the map. The most controversial element of the St. Johns Bayou New Madrid Floodway Project is a new proposed levee, come to be known as the New Madrid Levee, to close that quarter-mile gap.
For More Info Visit This Site: http://crowncapitalmngt.com/enmonitor.html
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Pentalver Launch Bespoke Service for Biomas Sector
Container company Pentalver has created a new solution to the problem of where to house a new wood pellet store using its ISO containers.
With a ready supply of new or pre-used containers, storage facilities, skilled container conversion personnel and on-site electrics and plumbing, Pentalver says it is able to rework shipping containers to create a separate boiler house and fuel store, with an internal capacity of 33.2 m³.
It adds that the benefits of using shipping containers include their strong structure and weight bearing capacity which makes them ideal for housing heavy boiler equipment. There is also no need for additional foundations or a base as containers can be landed directly on to the ground.
Other benefits of the container boiler room are said to include: portability, ease of installation (it simply needs to sit on a concrete plinth) and a low cost alternative to an expensive permanent structure.
Sam Baggley, group container sales manager at Pentalver, said: “With the government committed to meeting 15 percent of the UK’s energy demand from renewable sources by 2020 and financial assistance available through the Renewable Heat Incentive, biomass installations are on the increase.
“Our converted containers provide a cost-efficient method of creating a totally bespoke boiler room that can be located in close proximity to residential or commercial properties.”
Monday, February 4, 2013
Want to Fix the Economy? Spend More Money
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/04/want-to-fix-the-economy-spend-more-money/
The economy operates on a simple principle: When people spend money, the economy grows. That means the goal of economic policy should be to maintain a level of spending that keeps the economy growing and minimizes the unavoidable peaks and valleys of the business cycle. This can’t be done without government intervention, mainly because free market capitalism tends to be too erratic (spending can fall sharply) and crisis prone. (See: Lehman Brothers 2008). Dramatic fluctuations in the markets, typically result in anemic business investment which leads to higher unemployment, slower growth and weaker demand. This problem was largely solved by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes understood that when private sector spending dropped off, public sector (government) spending had to increase or output would shrink, unemployment would rise, and the economy would begin to sputter.
Interestingly, all of the main players who are currently setting policy in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have some understanding of Keynes’ theories and how they can be used to put the economy back on track. The fact that Keynes remedies have been rejected in favor of unconventional and ineffective theories like QE (Quantitative Easing), suggests that the supporters of these policies are less interested in reviving the economy and putting people back to work, then they are with rewarding powerful constituents. 5 years of experimentation, has resulted in chronic high unemployment, droopy consumer confidence, negative wage growth, sky-high foreclosures and personal bankruptcies, record food stamp usage, and a sharp increase in extreme poverty. At the same time, the 3 main stock indicies have more than doubled in value while financial institutions and corporations are raking in record profits. There’s no doubt that QE has served the interests of the few while hurting the interests of the many
The reason Keynes theories experienced a “comeback” in 2009 is not hard to grasp. Congress and the White House were afraid that the financial system was about to collapse. That’s why Obama’s team of economics advisors–led by Lawrence Summers–pushed through the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), because, when the chips were down, economists turned to the tried-and-true remedies of John Maynard Keynes. And they worked, too, the only drawback was that the amount of the stimulus was too small to produce the recovery that had been promised. (For the latest on the effectiveness of the stimulus, see: “Joe Scarborough’s Attack on Stimulus“, Dean Baker, CEPR)
Critics of Obama’s fiscal stimulus say that “It didn’t work”, but the claim is ridiculous. How could it not work? Stimulus is not some magic elixir that works on one subject and not on another. It’s spending. Spending is activity, spending is growth, spending is demand, spending is hiring, spending is stimulus. Spending is everything. When the government spends money, it has the same effect as when a consumer spends money or a business spends money. Therefore, the stimulus worked.
The economy is not a sentient being. The economy doesn’t care if private citizens do the spending or the government does the spending. It doesn’t care if the money comes from personal bank accounts or budget deficits. The economy doesn’t care if the money is spent on cancer research or pet rocks. It doesn’t matter, because all spending increases activity, strengthens demand, and leads to more hiring. Saving has the opposite effect. While saving may be the necessary and sensible choice for an individual, it’s poison for the economy. When people save, the velocity of money decreases, demand weakens and growth slows. This whole question of saving vs spending is basic to Keynes’ view of how the economy works. Here’s an example which helps to explain:
“Let’s imagine there are only two people in the world, you and your friend…..You make $100 a week by selling milk to your friend at $1 a bottle, and he makes $100 a week because you buy chocolate from him at $1 a bar. The entire income in this economy (its Gross Domestic Product or GDP) is $200, which corresponds to 100 bottles of milk and 100 bars of chocolate.
One day you make a decision to save $20 out of your $100 and hold it in cash. Consequently, my income falls to $80, and the sum income in the economy is now $180, and the economy produces 20 chocolate bars less than before. In the subsequent week, I only have $80 to spend, hence your takings also fall to $80, and you buy a smaller amount of my milk.
In the end, you and your friend’s incomes are smaller and you are producing and consuming less than is potentially possible. Your economy has fallen into recession.
So now we have a recession but how do we get out of it? Well the neoclassical free market thinking is that you simply do nothing and the forex market will correct itself. In our example you will reduce the price of milk until you are selling 100 bottles again. Your friend does the same and he is now selling 100 bars of chocolate again. The recession is over.
However, this doesn’t happen overnight and could take a while, months even years. So Keynes advocates intervention by the state. Say the state printed $20 and bought your unsold produce, then you would be back to a monthly income of $100 and so would your friend because your income is his income. Full production is immediate therefore no recession and no reduction in GDP.” (“The Basics of Keynesian Economics”, etoro.com)
While imperfect, this analogy helps us get a better fix on what’s going on in the economy today. Presently, output is below what it should be by more than $1 trillion per year, thus, unemployment is high and growth is weak. At the same time, personal savings have risen from near-zero in 2007 to almost 4 percent today. The increase in savings has decreased spending which, in turn, has reduced activity and demand. According to Keynes, the state should step in and boost its spending to employ more of the economy’s resources and put more people back to work. Then, as the recovery gains momentum, the state can reduce its contribution and trim the deficits.
The GOP deficit hawks in Congress want to do the exact opposite. They want to want to reduce the deficits by cutting public spending on popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. This is a mistake that will only deepen the crisis and pave the way for another slump. It is fairly easy to see what’s wrong with this view by looking at last week’s Commerce Department report on GDP. On Thursday, the Commerce Department reported that 4th Quarter growth (2012) had slipped into negative territory due to a sharp reduction in business inventories and defense spending. This sent off alarms across the country. Was the report a “one off” or is the economy really headed back into recession? That’s what everyone wants to know. (A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth)
Now many people think that less money going to fatcat defense contractors is a good thing, and I agree. But as we said earlier, the economy doesn’t make value judgements like that. Spending is spending, and when government spending falls (as it did), the economy edges closer to recession. Now apply this same rule to the recommendations of the GOP deficit hawks. The hawks say they want “fiscal responsibility”, but what they’re opting for is another slump because the trillion dollar deficits (which represent $1 trillion of additional government spending) are the only thing keeping the economy from sliding back into recession. (See the breakdown of GDP report here).
So how do we reduce the deficits without pushing the economy back into recession?
Increase personal consumption? That seems like the logical choice, after all, if consumers go on another spending spree, then businesses will hire more workers, the economy will grow, federal revenues will balloon, and the deficits will vanish automatically. Problem solved, right?
The only thing is that–according to the data—personal consumption is just about back to normal now. That suggests that the problem isn’t consumption, the problem is that people are not spending as much as they did during the bubble years when residential construction was at its peak and homeowners were feeling flush due to rising housing prices. That hyper-spending was a result of fictitious equity, lax lending standards, low interest rates and massive fraud. The goal of policy should not be to create those same conditions again, (and increase the probability of another meltdown!) but to look for solutions elsewhere.
So, where do we look if not to more personal consumption? Business investment?
It’s unreasonable to expect businesses to make more products when demand is weak. They’d rather issue bigger dividends or buyback more of their own stock (which they have been doing) instead of building more widgets that will just sit on warehouse shelves.
So if neither consumers nor businesses can fill the gap (and reduce the deficits), then what about the government? In the short-term, that’s the best choice, especially since money is so cheap. Presently, the gov can borrow money at historic low rates–(10-year US Treasuries are currently below 2%). The administration should take advantage of these low rates and deploy more stimulus to kickstart the economy. As the economy gets back to full-steam, the deficits will shrink on their own and policymakers can work on a plan for long-term debt reduction.
So what should Obama be doing?
The Obama administration should launch an aggressive government-funded jobs program aimed at lowering unemployment by rebuilding the nation’s dilapidated infrastructure. The commitment of trillions of dollars in fiscal stimulus to the stated project would push the dollar lower which would reduce the trade deficit (US exports would become more competitive) while increasing domestic national savings. Full employment would put more money in the hands of people who would spent it quickly which would increase activity, demand and growth.
So the way to fix the economy is to use government resources to put people back to work. As Keynes opined in his masterpiece “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”: “I am now somewhat sceptical of the success of a merely monetary policy directed towards influencing the rate of interest. I expect to see the State… taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment; since it seems likely that the fluctuations in the market estimation of the marginal efficiency of different types of capital…. will be too great to be offset by any practicable changes in the rate of interest.”
In other words, interest rates and monetary policy alone, won’t get the job done. (Isn’t that obvious after 5 years of zero interest rate policy, ZIRP, and QE??) The government has to take the lead in directing investment to produce a strong and sustainable recovery. That’s what Obama should be doing.
The economy operates on a simple principle: When people spend money, the economy grows. That means the goal of economic policy should be to maintain a level of spending that keeps the economy growing and minimizes the unavoidable peaks and valleys of the business cycle. This can’t be done without government intervention, mainly because free market capitalism tends to be too erratic (spending can fall sharply) and crisis prone. (See: Lehman Brothers 2008). Dramatic fluctuations in the markets, typically result in anemic business investment which leads to higher unemployment, slower growth and weaker demand. This problem was largely solved by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes understood that when private sector spending dropped off, public sector (government) spending had to increase or output would shrink, unemployment would rise, and the economy would begin to sputter.
Interestingly, all of the main players who are currently setting policy in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have some understanding of Keynes’ theories and how they can be used to put the economy back on track. The fact that Keynes remedies have been rejected in favor of unconventional and ineffective theories like QE (Quantitative Easing), suggests that the supporters of these policies are less interested in reviving the economy and putting people back to work, then they are with rewarding powerful constituents. 5 years of experimentation, has resulted in chronic high unemployment, droopy consumer confidence, negative wage growth, sky-high foreclosures and personal bankruptcies, record food stamp usage, and a sharp increase in extreme poverty. At the same time, the 3 main stock indicies have more than doubled in value while financial institutions and corporations are raking in record profits. There’s no doubt that QE has served the interests of the few while hurting the interests of the many
The reason Keynes theories experienced a “comeback” in 2009 is not hard to grasp. Congress and the White House were afraid that the financial system was about to collapse. That’s why Obama’s team of economics advisors–led by Lawrence Summers–pushed through the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), because, when the chips were down, economists turned to the tried-and-true remedies of John Maynard Keynes. And they worked, too, the only drawback was that the amount of the stimulus was too small to produce the recovery that had been promised. (For the latest on the effectiveness of the stimulus, see: “Joe Scarborough’s Attack on Stimulus“, Dean Baker, CEPR)
Critics of Obama’s fiscal stimulus say that “It didn’t work”, but the claim is ridiculous. How could it not work? Stimulus is not some magic elixir that works on one subject and not on another. It’s spending. Spending is activity, spending is growth, spending is demand, spending is hiring, spending is stimulus. Spending is everything. When the government spends money, it has the same effect as when a consumer spends money or a business spends money. Therefore, the stimulus worked.
The economy is not a sentient being. The economy doesn’t care if private citizens do the spending or the government does the spending. It doesn’t care if the money comes from personal bank accounts or budget deficits. The economy doesn’t care if the money is spent on cancer research or pet rocks. It doesn’t matter, because all spending increases activity, strengthens demand, and leads to more hiring. Saving has the opposite effect. While saving may be the necessary and sensible choice for an individual, it’s poison for the economy. When people save, the velocity of money decreases, demand weakens and growth slows. This whole question of saving vs spending is basic to Keynes’ view of how the economy works. Here’s an example which helps to explain:
“Let’s imagine there are only two people in the world, you and your friend…..You make $100 a week by selling milk to your friend at $1 a bottle, and he makes $100 a week because you buy chocolate from him at $1 a bar. The entire income in this economy (its Gross Domestic Product or GDP) is $200, which corresponds to 100 bottles of milk and 100 bars of chocolate.
One day you make a decision to save $20 out of your $100 and hold it in cash. Consequently, my income falls to $80, and the sum income in the economy is now $180, and the economy produces 20 chocolate bars less than before. In the subsequent week, I only have $80 to spend, hence your takings also fall to $80, and you buy a smaller amount of my milk.
In the end, you and your friend’s incomes are smaller and you are producing and consuming less than is potentially possible. Your economy has fallen into recession.
So now we have a recession but how do we get out of it? Well the neoclassical free market thinking is that you simply do nothing and the forex market will correct itself. In our example you will reduce the price of milk until you are selling 100 bottles again. Your friend does the same and he is now selling 100 bars of chocolate again. The recession is over.
However, this doesn’t happen overnight and could take a while, months even years. So Keynes advocates intervention by the state. Say the state printed $20 and bought your unsold produce, then you would be back to a monthly income of $100 and so would your friend because your income is his income. Full production is immediate therefore no recession and no reduction in GDP.” (“The Basics of Keynesian Economics”, etoro.com)
While imperfect, this analogy helps us get a better fix on what’s going on in the economy today. Presently, output is below what it should be by more than $1 trillion per year, thus, unemployment is high and growth is weak. At the same time, personal savings have risen from near-zero in 2007 to almost 4 percent today. The increase in savings has decreased spending which, in turn, has reduced activity and demand. According to Keynes, the state should step in and boost its spending to employ more of the economy’s resources and put more people back to work. Then, as the recovery gains momentum, the state can reduce its contribution and trim the deficits.
The GOP deficit hawks in Congress want to do the exact opposite. They want to want to reduce the deficits by cutting public spending on popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. This is a mistake that will only deepen the crisis and pave the way for another slump. It is fairly easy to see what’s wrong with this view by looking at last week’s Commerce Department report on GDP. On Thursday, the Commerce Department reported that 4th Quarter growth (2012) had slipped into negative territory due to a sharp reduction in business inventories and defense spending. This sent off alarms across the country. Was the report a “one off” or is the economy really headed back into recession? That’s what everyone wants to know. (A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth)
Now many people think that less money going to fatcat defense contractors is a good thing, and I agree. But as we said earlier, the economy doesn’t make value judgements like that. Spending is spending, and when government spending falls (as it did), the economy edges closer to recession. Now apply this same rule to the recommendations of the GOP deficit hawks. The hawks say they want “fiscal responsibility”, but what they’re opting for is another slump because the trillion dollar deficits (which represent $1 trillion of additional government spending) are the only thing keeping the economy from sliding back into recession. (See the breakdown of GDP report here).
So how do we reduce the deficits without pushing the economy back into recession?
Increase personal consumption? That seems like the logical choice, after all, if consumers go on another spending spree, then businesses will hire more workers, the economy will grow, federal revenues will balloon, and the deficits will vanish automatically. Problem solved, right?
The only thing is that–according to the data—personal consumption is just about back to normal now. That suggests that the problem isn’t consumption, the problem is that people are not spending as much as they did during the bubble years when residential construction was at its peak and homeowners were feeling flush due to rising housing prices. That hyper-spending was a result of fictitious equity, lax lending standards, low interest rates and massive fraud. The goal of policy should not be to create those same conditions again, (and increase the probability of another meltdown!) but to look for solutions elsewhere.
So, where do we look if not to more personal consumption? Business investment?
It’s unreasonable to expect businesses to make more products when demand is weak. They’d rather issue bigger dividends or buyback more of their own stock (which they have been doing) instead of building more widgets that will just sit on warehouse shelves.
So if neither consumers nor businesses can fill the gap (and reduce the deficits), then what about the government? In the short-term, that’s the best choice, especially since money is so cheap. Presently, the gov can borrow money at historic low rates–(10-year US Treasuries are currently below 2%). The administration should take advantage of these low rates and deploy more stimulus to kickstart the economy. As the economy gets back to full-steam, the deficits will shrink on their own and policymakers can work on a plan for long-term debt reduction.
So what should Obama be doing?
The Obama administration should launch an aggressive government-funded jobs program aimed at lowering unemployment by rebuilding the nation’s dilapidated infrastructure. The commitment of trillions of dollars in fiscal stimulus to the stated project would push the dollar lower which would reduce the trade deficit (US exports would become more competitive) while increasing domestic national savings. Full employment would put more money in the hands of people who would spent it quickly which would increase activity, demand and growth.
So the way to fix the economy is to use government resources to put people back to work. As Keynes opined in his masterpiece “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”: “I am now somewhat sceptical of the success of a merely monetary policy directed towards influencing the rate of interest. I expect to see the State… taking an ever greater responsibility for directly organising investment; since it seems likely that the fluctuations in the market estimation of the marginal efficiency of different types of capital…. will be too great to be offset by any practicable changes in the rate of interest.”
In other words, interest rates and monetary policy alone, won’t get the job done. (Isn’t that obvious after 5 years of zero interest rate policy, ZIRP, and QE??) The government has to take the lead in directing investment to produce a strong and sustainable recovery. That’s what Obama should be doing.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Crown Capital Eco Management Jakarta Indonesia: Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? - Business News - Zimbio
http://blog.crowncapitalmngt.com/
The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers?
Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible.
Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world’s energy consumption and still growing. The International Energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035.
Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal.
Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity.
Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the disadvantages of using coal burning boilers.
While coal prices are expected to remain stable natural gas prices are expected to increase as higher cost natural gas reserves need to be developed to meet growing demand and offset losses from depleting gas wells. On the other hand, natural gas based technologies have a capital cost advantage.
Whatever the costs may be, don’t you think it is better to use natural gas rather than the coal boilers? Even though natural gas is more costly than coal boilers it is less harmful to the environment and to human health. It is always better to take into considerations the things that are more important than money. It is not wise to be thrifty over something that in a long run would back fire on you and worst your kids. Long term effects of coal boilers are scarier than the costs in terms of money that it will bring us today. Environmental effects and health issues will sure be more costly in the future.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Yelp - Crown Capital Eco Management
http://www.yelp.com/biz/crown-capital-eco-management-singapore
We all know that regardless of where you live, the weather is often unpredictable. A comfy 60 degree winter day in the Midwest; chilly and breezy on a late spring day in the pacific coast. To some of us, the prevalence of unusual weather is simply the work of Mother Nature. Others are more convinced that our reckless treatment of the earth has made global warming that much more of a reality.
The natural level of discomfort that results from the thought of global warming is reinforced by numerous reports claiming inevitable environmental doom. A recent article in the Nature Magazine went as far as predicting that over the next fifty years, well over one million species will cease to exist due to global warming.
Impact of the Information Technology
Coupled with the fear prompted by environmental experts and know-it-alls is a plethora of scams. Some attempt to persuade our beliefs, while others operate with the intentions of fraud. Far from being verified is one claim that global warming is a man-made predicament. Instead of drawing these conclusions from observable facts, these assumptions are based on methods of computer modeling that generate artificial, manipulable graphic-based visions of the earth. A computer can only process the information fed to it, which in this case is usually fraudulent data intended to stir up controversy.
Other types of environmental fraud target those who carry enough concern about the planet to make a difference. These scams typically find their way to you via email, online survey or fraudulent website. Often, criminals will make an attempt to persuade you into contributing to the prevention of global warming, preservation of the rain forest or other environmental issues. These frauds are experienced and rather savvy, able to produce content that makes them appear legitimate. Some of them will even steal logos and other identifying materials to masquerade themselves as reputable environmental organizations. To further complicate matters, you typically will have no way of knowing where your contribution actually went. In a worst case scenario, a scam artist uses your personal information to commit identity theft and runs up hundreds to thousands in debt.
In the End
It just may be safe to assume that environmental problems such as global warming has everything to do with politics and little to do with science. Scientists who endorse these theories command and often receive robust government grants to conduct their research. Without the prevalence of imminent threats, scientists wouldn't get funded, essentially making these environmental issues a big business. Right behind these scientist is a group of criminals determined to play on your fear and genuine concern to turn a profit.
In the end, it is at your discretion whether or not you choose to believe or financially support these highly publicized environmental issues. At the same time, you must keep in mind that many of these theories are not supported by verifiable documentation while remaining aware of the numerous scams lurking in the background.
You can do your part at preserving the environment by viewing the tips on the following website: http://www.environmental…
We all know that regardless of where you live, the weather is often unpredictable. A comfy 60 degree winter day in the Midwest; chilly and breezy on a late spring day in the pacific coast. To some of us, the prevalence of unusual weather is simply the work of Mother Nature. Others are more convinced that our reckless treatment of the earth has made global warming that much more of a reality.
The natural level of discomfort that results from the thought of global warming is reinforced by numerous reports claiming inevitable environmental doom. A recent article in the Nature Magazine went as far as predicting that over the next fifty years, well over one million species will cease to exist due to global warming.
Impact of the Information Technology
Coupled with the fear prompted by environmental experts and know-it-alls is a plethora of scams. Some attempt to persuade our beliefs, while others operate with the intentions of fraud. Far from being verified is one claim that global warming is a man-made predicament. Instead of drawing these conclusions from observable facts, these assumptions are based on methods of computer modeling that generate artificial, manipulable graphic-based visions of the earth. A computer can only process the information fed to it, which in this case is usually fraudulent data intended to stir up controversy.
Other types of environmental fraud target those who carry enough concern about the planet to make a difference. These scams typically find their way to you via email, online survey or fraudulent website. Often, criminals will make an attempt to persuade you into contributing to the prevention of global warming, preservation of the rain forest or other environmental issues. These frauds are experienced and rather savvy, able to produce content that makes them appear legitimate. Some of them will even steal logos and other identifying materials to masquerade themselves as reputable environmental organizations. To further complicate matters, you typically will have no way of knowing where your contribution actually went. In a worst case scenario, a scam artist uses your personal information to commit identity theft and runs up hundreds to thousands in debt.
In the End
It just may be safe to assume that environmental problems such as global warming has everything to do with politics and little to do with science. Scientists who endorse these theories command and often receive robust government grants to conduct their research. Without the prevalence of imminent threats, scientists wouldn't get funded, essentially making these environmental issues a big business. Right behind these scientist is a group of criminals determined to play on your fear and genuine concern to turn a profit.
In the end, it is at your discretion whether or not you choose to believe or financially support these highly publicized environmental issues. At the same time, you must keep in mind that many of these theories are not supported by verifiable documentation while remaining aware of the numerous scams lurking in the background.
You can do your part at preserving the environment by viewing the tips on the following website: http://www.environmental…
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Crown Eco Management Jakarta Indonesia
http://blog.crowncapitalmngt.com/
Eco Ventures Plans 100% Upfront Acquisition of Energiepark Suptitz
GROVELAND, Fla., Oct. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Eco Ventures Group, Inc. (OTCBB: EVGI), an emerging producer of diversified sustainable alternative energy and resources, today announced that Energiepark ... Posted on: 08. Oct. 2012.
Eco-friendly Move by Chesapeake
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is planning to develop a 100% green mixture of fluids for fracturing oil and gas formations underground. Posted on: 03. Oct. 2012.
The Eco-Friendly Filta Franchise has a new owner in Ft. Lauderdale
Filta Environmental Kitchen Solutions has a new Franchise Owner in Ft Lauderdale. The location formerly owned by Robert Orr is now under the management of new Filta Franchise Owner David DevaldivielsoFt. Lauderdale, FL (PRWEB) September 28, 2012 The Filta Environmental Kitchen Solutions mobile franchise has been promoting fryer management internationally ever since its inception in 1996. The ... Posted on: 28. Sep. 2012.
Eco Ventures Plans 100% Upfront Acquisition of Energiepark Suptitz
GROVELAND, Fla., Oct. 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Eco Ventures Group, Inc. (OTCBB: EVGI), an emerging producer of diversified sustainable alternative energy and resources, today announced that Energiepark ... Posted on: 08. Oct. 2012.
Eco-friendly Move by Chesapeake
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is planning to develop a 100% green mixture of fluids for fracturing oil and gas formations underground. Posted on: 03. Oct. 2012.
The Eco-Friendly Filta Franchise has a new owner in Ft. Lauderdale
Filta Environmental Kitchen Solutions has a new Franchise Owner in Ft Lauderdale. The location formerly owned by Robert Orr is now under the management of new Filta Franchise Owner David DevaldivielsoFt. Lauderdale, FL (PRWEB) September 28, 2012 The Filta Environmental Kitchen Solutions mobile franchise has been promoting fryer management internationally ever since its inception in 1996. The ... Posted on: 28. Sep. 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)