Did the cost-savings carrot we call a tax-free weekend lure you into stores? No, me either.
Just because a discount is offered — brace yourself shop-a-holics — you don’t need to take advantage of it. In my house, we’d rather fix something than replace it.
Remember: Reduce, reuse, renew, recycle, rethink.
Retailers were expecting a boost in appliance sales this weekend as North Carolina’s second tax-free holiday for energy-efficient electronics lured in customers ready to purchase the big ticket items.
Most washers, dryers and refrigerators which carry the Energy Star seal are among the purchases which qualify for tax-free sales.
“The newer models use up to 50-percent less energy,” said Mike Wilson, a manager at the Lowe’s Home Improvement store on Iverson Way.
Lowe’s was among several stores that offered discounts on energy efficient appliances during the sales tax holiday.
The energy industry is getting a makeover. The U.S. needs to lead the way to remain competitive in the global market, and Charlotte’s ready to lead the charge.
The $787 billion stimulus package the Obama administration put together this year includes about $70 billion in grants and tax breaks for the energy industry — almost all of it directed at clean-energy companies. The Charlotte region, hungry for growth in the sector, has already received significant grants from the clean-energy programs in the bill.
The largest was the $42.9 million awarded to Celgard, a local subsidiary of Charlotte-based Polypore International Inc. That will help Celgard beef up production of membranes used in lithium batteries to power electric vehicles.
That effort will create 200 jobs. Celgard has payroll of 300 at its plant on Carowinds Boulevard. But it’s not clear whether all the new jobs will be in the region. The company intends to use the stimulus funding to help build a second plant, but Mitch Pulwer, general manager, says Celgard has not decided on a site.
Chemetall Foote Corp. in Kings Mountain, a division of Germany-based Chemetall, will also be working on batteries for electric vehicles, using a $28.4 million grant.
The funds will be part of a $56 million investment in expanding Chemetall’s lithium-production facilities.
Tim McKenna, spokesman, says about 60% of the total will be spent in Kings Mountain.
Both companies are already major players in the lithium-battery market. Chemetall produces about a third of the lithium for batteries worldwide. And Celgard is a major supplier for membranes used in batteries for cell phones, laptops, digital cameras and other common products.
But both see the nascent electric-vehicle business as a major new market. That could mean more growth in Kings Mountain and Charlotte down the line.
Read the entire Charlotte Business Journal article here.
Of course, we already know “Charlotte’s Got a Lot” — don’t we? Who wouldn’t want to work and live here? We’ve got great weather and we’re close to both the mountains and the ocean. We’ve got big business in and around Uptown and a bright ‘green’ alternative energy future ahead.
FORTUNE did point out our lack of public transportation as a weakness, but that’s no surprise either.
FSB Editor Jessica Bruder writes, “Historically, fast-growing small companies have led the U.S. economy out of recession. And according to our latest [FSB/Zogby International] poll, nearly half of all small business owners would consider moving if doing so would help their companies…. Location matters more than ever before. The Great Recession redrew the map of America.”
Let’s make sure we’ve got the details straight here:
North Carolina’s Democratic Party sent out a mailing linking wealthy developers and John Lassiter, a Republican who is — you might have heard — running for mayor. OK. Check. That’s accurate — Lassiter is the developer’s main man. One in five dollar bills in his campaign coffer is from developers while only one in every 20 bucks in Foxx’s is from the same group.
Lassiter called a press conference to whine about the mailer and admit his rival, Democrat Anthony Foxx, didn’t have anything to do with the mailer. Um. OK. Check. Read Lassiter’s media statement here.
In last week’s debate, Lassiter even made the developer-yes-man connection himself:
Foxx took the first shot at Wednesday’s debate. “During your many years in politics you have taken thousands of dollars from big developers and consistently sided with developer interests… Why are you so convinced that our economic revival is best left to big developers…?”
Some expected Lassiter to dispute the premise. He didn’t.
“Because so much of what we need to happen is at the hands of the development community,” Lassiter replied.
In the constant tug between development and regulation, the record suggests Lassiter values the role developers and builders play in making things happen in Charlotte more than Foxx does. And it suggests Foxx values the role government plays in making sure developers do their business responsibly and with respect for certain aspects of Charlotte’s quality of life more than Lassiter does.
Who’s right? You decide, Tuesday.
In case Lassiter hasn’t noticed, there’s more going on in Charlotte than construction projects … and who really wants sprawl anyway?
With that, have you gotten off your lazy ass and voted yet? Why the hell not? Tuesday is Election Day. I don’t want to hear any excuses. Go. Vote.
The best way to learn about social media is to dive in. It’s not brain surgery. For most people and small businesses, lessons aren’t required.
With social media becoming as buzz-worthy as “green,” consultants and self-professed experts are popping up all over Charlotte to help clients demystify Twitter, Facebook and other social media tools.
Corey Creed, president of Hippo Internet Marketing Training, is an active member of Charlotte’s social media scene. He estimates that of all the people offering social media consulting services, about two-thirds are legitimate.
“Just being good at using social media is different than teaching a business how to use it,” Creed said. “You don’t hire someone that just uses it.”
Jim Mitchem of Smash Communications agreed, saying a real “expert” is rare.
“I often say that if you can articulate the commercial applicability of social media to people who want to invest marketing money into the medium, then you’re an expert,” Mitchem said. “I’ve seen few people who can do this.”
…
Creed, on the other hand, said a consultant doesn’t need extensive training to advise very small businesses. He believes a few weekend seminars — a service he himself provides — and heavy experimentation can teach them what they need to know.
“There’s a deeper level for big business, but for a chiropractor in Rock Hill or a dentist in Concord, it’s not that hard,” Creed said. “I think people spend too much time reading about this stuff and not enough time doing it.”
The headline doesn’t seem to make sense at first, does it? Or, perhaps you thought I meant Charlotte’s energy giant, Duke Energy, is doubling down to oppose climate change legislation.
If anything, Duke’s CEO, Jim Rogers, is making more headway in the clean energy industry and with climate change progress than a lot of politicians, as yesterday’s Charlotte Business Journal points out.
How so? Well, for starters, he’s negotiating cooperative green energy technology contracts with China and actively working to shape climate change legislation in Washington.
But, what you can’t forget when reading all of these headlines is Duke is a publicly traded company. If green energy technology will add a little jingle to shareholders’ pockets, green energy wins. If coal is the answer, well, the company — and their two new coal-fired plants — are gearing up for that potential win, too. If climate change legislation is a must, might as well be at the table instead of pouting in the corner.
So, I say, if Rogers can significantly lower his company’s Co2 emissions, create green jobs, green the energy grid and turn a profit all at the same time and without regulation — more power to him.
All the same, most environmental groups would appreciate it if you would watch what the company does as well as what its charismatic leader says, then compare the two. According to many of them, Rogers is little more than a green washer in a suit.
Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, the nation’s third largest electric utility. His stacks pump 100 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, which makes what comes out of Rogers’ mouth so surprising.
“Controlling carbon emissions in the near future is inevitable in your view. This is going to happen,” Pelley remarked.
“It’s inevitable in my judgment,” Rogers agreed.
“You’re one of the biggest polluters in the world when it comes to carbon emissions,” Pelley pointed out.
“We’re one of the largest emitters. And it tells you how daunting the challenge is that we have in front of us,” Rogers replied.
“You know, there are a lot of people many of them in your industry may who you probably know who say that global warming is not a big problem,” Pelley said.
“It’s my judgment it is a problem,” Rogers said. “We need to go to work on it now. And it’s critical that we start to act in this country.”
Like a reformed tobacco executive, Rogers says we can’t survive the emissions his industry creates.
Here’s Mr. Rogers at a recent environmental forum:
Fossil-fuel-based energy production, mostly from coal and oil, causes $120 billion worth of health and other non-climate-related damages in the U.S. each year that are not figured into the price of energy, says a National Research Council report released last week.
The dollar amount is primarily based on health impacts and premature deaths of nearly 20,000 people annually that result from air pollution generated by coal-fired electric power plants and motor vehicles. Specifically, the report looked at damages caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulates, and nitrogen oxides.
Using life-cycle analyses, the study finds that nearly all of the $120 billion in damages is due to electricity generation ($63 billion) and transportation fuel production and use ($56 billion), says Jared L. Cohon, committee chairman and president of Carnegie Mellon University. The remaining $1 billion is due to heating. But the total is conservative, he continues, because it does not reflect the impact of climate change, harm to ecosystems, or the effect of toxic air pollutants, such as mercury or lead.
Most of the $63 billion in damages attributed to electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, which produce half the nation’s electricity. Nearly half of these damages come from emissions by 10% of the dirtiest coal plants—the U.S. has some 406 such plants. The report also finds that although natural gas generates 20% of U.S. electricity, it contributes only about $1 billion in health and non-climate-related damages.
For transportation, the report finds that damages total some $56 billion from vehicles and motor fuels over their full life cycles, from extraction to refining to use in a vehicle. Most of the damage costs come from extraction and production, and only one-third are due to motor vehicle operation.
The 19-member report panel of economists found that damages from corn-grain-based biofuels are similar to or slightly worse than those from gasoline because of energy needed to produce and convert corn to fuel. But for ethanol from cellulosic feedstock, the damages drop.
The panel could not tightly tie down climate-change impacts, and the report finds a wide range of damage costs due to carbon dioxide emissions—between $1.00 and $100 per ton. Considering the size of U.S. CO2 emissions, this works out to $7 billion to $700 billion in annual damages from greenhouse gas emissions.
Move over, it’s Saturday night at Club Bounce and people are bouncing onto the dance floor in a big, big way.
These are big, big people, all dressed to the nines and many tipping the scales at 250, maybe 300 pounds.
That’s because this expansive nightclub a couple blocks from the Pacific Ocean, with its flashing lights, friendly atmosphere and wall-rattling hip-hop sounds, caters specifically to fat people.
That’s right, fat people. Not just any fat people, either, but fat people who are proud to call themselves fat people. People who joke that they are part of the new Fat is Phat movement.
“Self-conscious? No! Not at all,” laughs Monique Lopez, a curvaceous woman of 23 as she arrives in a tight, black dress and heels. “I was like, ‘I’m going to Club Bounce tonight. I’m going to wear my shortest skirt.’” (Which she did.)
The movement for equal rights for plus-sized people is nothing new of course. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, with chapters around the country, was founded 40 years ago. A nonprofit group, it advocates that everyone be treated equally regardless of size, arguing that we don’t live in a one-size-fits-all world.
But what has been slower coming, fat advocates say, are places like Club Bounce, where people who might have some trouble getting past the velvet ropes at other night spots because of their size are made to feel like they fit right in.
Charged with growing entrepreneurs in rural Rutherford County, Tim Will surveyed foothills numbed by 14 percent unemployment and illiteracy and limited by few high-speed links to the global marketplace.
But one other statistic caught the newcomer’s eye: the county’s 6,000 small plots of land, much of it overgrown former farmland.
What if played-out cotton fields, Will wondered, grew fruits and vegetables again? And what if the produce was marketed online to Charlotte restaurants hungry for locally raised foods?
The result is Farmers Fresh Market, now ending its third year. Charlotte chefs log on to its Web site, clicking on the purple potatoes or haricot verts that please them. The produce is delivered to their kitchens within 24 hours of harvest.
This year, 87 Rutherford growers marketed their produce that way.
A San Francisco think tank, Civic Ventures, got wind of the market, which is believed to be the only one of its kind in North Carolina. Each year Civic Ventures awards “Purpose Prize” to social innovators over 60 who do good things in their “encore” careers.
That’s why, today, Tim Will is $100,000 richer.
…
“Getting change, getting things done, that’s what’s important to me and my wife,” he said. “It’s not my money. The community has earned it.”
So he will give his $100,000 prize to the farm program.
Editing science = lying. We the People deserve to know what’s being pumped into our air, water, underneath the ground and into our bodies.
While the last Bush administration edited science to suit the needs of big business, the Obama administration takes their job a little more seriously. They seem to understand that no amount of corporate profit or shareholder praise is worth our health or the earth’s.
The apparent interference by Council on Environmental Quality during the Bush administration prompted a 16-month congressional investigation beginning in July 2006 that pored over 27,000 pages of White House documents. “The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming,” the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007. “White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change.”
…
The CEQ also helped shape the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) declaration that it did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as well as its decision not to declare them a danger to public health under the Clean Air Act, despite an internal EPA analysis noting that greenhouse gas emissions endangered public welfare. “The decision to go with an advanced notice [of proposed rule making] or not was ultimately Steve Johnson’s” (the EPA administrator at the end of the Bush tenure), Connaughton says. “That comes out of a broader policy management discussion about how far [you] could go with the Clean Air Act versus how far you could go with legislation…I would have tried to get the climate legislative piece going earlier. If I could have gotten that going a year-and-half earlier, that would have heightened prospects of climate legislation by the end of our term.”
With the advent of the Obama administration, CEQ again reorganized, and some of its duties under the previous administration—such as taking the lead in climate change policymaking—were given to a newly created White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy directed by former Clinton-era EPA administrator, Carol Browner.
…
Her new approach at CEQ “is to be guided by science and law,” Sutley says. “I’m not a scientist and I’m not going to comment on the science. My role here and CEQ’s role is to advise the president on environmental policy. The science is what the science is.”
