Scientists here have succeeded in converting a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide into a green energy source.
Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) researchers said that they used organocatalysts to help carbon dioxide (CO2) produce methanol, a widely used industrial feedstock and clean-burning biofuel.
Organocatalysts are catalysts that comprise non-metallic elements found in organic compounds. They can be produced easily at low cost.
The scientists made CO2 react by using N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), an organocatalyst, which unlike heavy, toxic and unstable metal catalysts are stable, even in the presence of oxygen.
"NHCs have shown tremendous potential for activating and fixing carbon dioxide. Our work can contribute towards transforming excess carbon dioxide in the environment into useful products such as methanol," said Siti Nurhanna Riduan, IBN senior lab officer.
Previous attempts to convert CO2 into more useful products have required more energy input and a much longer reaction time. They also require transition metal catalysts, which are both unstable in oxygen and expensive, said an IBN release.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Can G8 live up to the climate challenge?
A year ago, the leaders of the world's eight leading industrialised nations promised that their children would fight climate change. This summer, they will have to show whether they are willing to do something about it themselves.
The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US are set to meet during July 8-10 in the earthquake-stricken Italian town of L'Aquila, with climate change high on the agenda ahead of UN talks in Copenhagen in December.
The last time when the leaders from the Group of Eight (G8) met in Japan in July 2008, they agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
Environmental groups attacked that pledge, saying that the leaders at the summit would be dead long before the target date, and that the target itself was meaningless, since it did not say what year would be used as the base for calculating the actual size of the cut.
Now the pressure is on for G8 members to set shorter-range targets which they themselves might have to implement.
Italy, which currently holds the G8 presidency, wants the meeting to agree that global emissions should peak by 2020 and that world temperature change should be limited to 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Those two targets are based on the research of the UN's climate change experts, and have already been accepted in the EU.
But they have not yet been endorsed by the G8's non-European members, with the US and Japan - the world's two biggest economies - saying that it would be wrong to agree on a mid-term target and overall temperature goal before the Copenhagen talks.
G8 members are also at odds over the question of how each one should define its national emissions reduction targets.
EU members want the G8 to use 1990 as the "base year" for calculating cuts. The EU has already put that policy into practice by pledging to cut emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to go to 30 per cent if other major economies follow suit.
EU emissions have fallen by some eight percent since 1990, meaning that the bloc will have to manage a further cut of some 12 per cent compared with 1990 over the next 12 years.
But the US and Japan, whose emissions have risen by close on 20 per cent since 1990, say that they cannot accept 1990 as a base year, because this would leave them having to make much steeper cuts than their European economic rivals.
The duo, who are currently eyeing cuts which would bring them back to or just below 1990 levels by 2020, insist that any G8 deal should be based on the principle of equal effort from now on.
That is unlikely to go down well in the EU and Russia, who want to be given the maximum possible credit for their post-1990 cuts.
Meetings on the fringes of the G8 summit are also set to be fraught, with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) - the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa - also due to debate thorny issues of global warming.
The thorniest is the question of how rich countries should pay poor ones to fight climate change - and who counts as "poor".
Estimates of the amount needed to support less wealthy states in the climate change fight range from $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020. Britain has proposed a $100-billion-a-year fund, to be funded by the sale of emissions permits and by development aid.
On June 19, an EU summit urged leading powers to agree on a formula for splitting the bill, based on their historical emissions and current wealth.
They also said that major developing economies should chip in.
Both calls are likely to provoke fierce debate in L'Aquila - especially since EU members have, as yet, been unable to agree how they themselves should split the EU's share of the total global bill.
But with the Copenhagen talks just five months away, G8 and MEF leaders are likely to find that the pressure is on them to agree to action for this decade, rather than the next.
The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US are set to meet during July 8-10 in the earthquake-stricken Italian town of L'Aquila, with climate change high on the agenda ahead of UN talks in Copenhagen in December.
The last time when the leaders from the Group of Eight (G8) met in Japan in July 2008, they agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
Environmental groups attacked that pledge, saying that the leaders at the summit would be dead long before the target date, and that the target itself was meaningless, since it did not say what year would be used as the base for calculating the actual size of the cut.
Now the pressure is on for G8 members to set shorter-range targets which they themselves might have to implement.
Italy, which currently holds the G8 presidency, wants the meeting to agree that global emissions should peak by 2020 and that world temperature change should be limited to 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Those two targets are based on the research of the UN's climate change experts, and have already been accepted in the EU.
But they have not yet been endorsed by the G8's non-European members, with the US and Japan - the world's two biggest economies - saying that it would be wrong to agree on a mid-term target and overall temperature goal before the Copenhagen talks.
G8 members are also at odds over the question of how each one should define its national emissions reduction targets.
EU members want the G8 to use 1990 as the "base year" for calculating cuts. The EU has already put that policy into practice by pledging to cut emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to go to 30 per cent if other major economies follow suit.
EU emissions have fallen by some eight percent since 1990, meaning that the bloc will have to manage a further cut of some 12 per cent compared with 1990 over the next 12 years.
But the US and Japan, whose emissions have risen by close on 20 per cent since 1990, say that they cannot accept 1990 as a base year, because this would leave them having to make much steeper cuts than their European economic rivals.
The duo, who are currently eyeing cuts which would bring them back to or just below 1990 levels by 2020, insist that any G8 deal should be based on the principle of equal effort from now on.
That is unlikely to go down well in the EU and Russia, who want to be given the maximum possible credit for their post-1990 cuts.
Meetings on the fringes of the G8 summit are also set to be fraught, with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) - the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa - also due to debate thorny issues of global warming.
The thorniest is the question of how rich countries should pay poor ones to fight climate change - and who counts as "poor".
Estimates of the amount needed to support less wealthy states in the climate change fight range from $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020. Britain has proposed a $100-billion-a-year fund, to be funded by the sale of emissions permits and by development aid.
On June 19, an EU summit urged leading powers to agree on a formula for splitting the bill, based on their historical emissions and current wealth.
They also said that major developing economies should chip in.
Both calls are likely to provoke fierce debate in L'Aquila - especially since EU members have, as yet, been unable to agree how they themselves should split the EU's share of the total global bill.
But with the Copenhagen talks just five months away, G8 and MEF leaders are likely to find that the pressure is on them to agree to action for this decade, rather than the next.
Russia rejects G8 emissions cut target
ussia has refused to back a target of an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 proposed by the Group of Eight (G8) countries, a Kremlin aide said on Wednesday after the first day of the G8 summit.
At a news conference earlier in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the world's richest nations should cut their emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century.
Arkady Dvorkovich, who is accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, told reporters: "We will not sacrifice our economic growth to meet emissions cuts. Economic growth must be effective. Everyone spoke about this."
He called the 80 per cent target "unacceptable, and probably unattainable".
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, earlier said the G8 had agreed to set targets that would limit the likely rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions to no more than two degrees Celsius. He also said 1990 should be set as the base year for measuring emission reductions.
At a news conference earlier in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the world's richest nations should cut their emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century.
Arkady Dvorkovich, who is accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, told reporters: "We will not sacrifice our economic growth to meet emissions cuts. Economic growth must be effective. Everyone spoke about this."
He called the 80 per cent target "unacceptable, and probably unattainable".
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, earlier said the G8 had agreed to set targets that would limit the likely rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions to no more than two degrees Celsius. He also said 1990 should be set as the base year for measuring emission reductions.
Environmentalists unfurl Mt. Rushmore banner
Environmentalists who used National Park Service rock anchors to scale Mount Rushmore and unfurl an anti-global warming banner along President Abraham Lincoln's face Wednesday were charged with trespassing.
The 11 activists also were charged with the misdemeanor crime of climbing on Mount Rushmore National Monument, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement that its members used the park service's existing rock anchors to scale the mountain and unfurl a 65-foot (20-meter)-by-35-foot (10.7-meter) banner reading, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."
Mount Rushmore Ranger Nav Singh said security warnings and tourists alerted officials when the banner was unrolled. The banner was removed about an hour after it was unfurled.
"You can't create any security system that's 100 percent fail-safe. There's just not enough resources for that," Singh said. "Determined individuals that are properly equipped and willing to do damage to government property can do this sort of thing."
Taken away in handcuffs and foot chainsTwelve people were taken away in handcuffs and foot chains. The 12th person taken into custody was released without being charged, Jackley said.
The National Park Service said in a statement that its staff and security detected the activists early and responded "within minutes." Visitors were not in danger, authorities said.
Park service staff remained at the mountain Wednesday to assess damage to the sculpture and security systems.
A number of demonstrations have taken place at Mount Rushmore over the years. In the early 1970s, American Indian Movement members tried several times to occupy and deface the monument. In August 1970, AIM members hung a banner with the words "Sioux Indian Power" on the monument.
In October 1987, Greenpeace activists tried unsuccessfully to unfurl a banner shaped like a gas mask over George Washington's face. That banner said, "We the People Say No to Acid Rain."
Security measures were beefed up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 11 activists charged Wednesday were released on their own recognizance after the court hearing. A trespassing conviction carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, prosecutors said.
The 11 activists also were charged with the misdemeanor crime of climbing on Mount Rushmore National Monument, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement that its members used the park service's existing rock anchors to scale the mountain and unfurl a 65-foot (20-meter)-by-35-foot (10.7-meter) banner reading, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."
Mount Rushmore Ranger Nav Singh said security warnings and tourists alerted officials when the banner was unrolled. The banner was removed about an hour after it was unfurled.
"You can't create any security system that's 100 percent fail-safe. There's just not enough resources for that," Singh said. "Determined individuals that are properly equipped and willing to do damage to government property can do this sort of thing."
Taken away in handcuffs and foot chainsTwelve people were taken away in handcuffs and foot chains. The 12th person taken into custody was released without being charged, Jackley said.
The National Park Service said in a statement that its staff and security detected the activists early and responded "within minutes." Visitors were not in danger, authorities said.
Park service staff remained at the mountain Wednesday to assess damage to the sculpture and security systems.
A number of demonstrations have taken place at Mount Rushmore over the years. In the early 1970s, American Indian Movement members tried several times to occupy and deface the monument. In August 1970, AIM members hung a banner with the words "Sioux Indian Power" on the monument.
In October 1987, Greenpeace activists tried unsuccessfully to unfurl a banner shaped like a gas mask over George Washington's face. That banner said, "We the People Say No to Acid Rain."
Security measures were beefed up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 11 activists charged Wednesday were released on their own recognizance after the court hearing. A trespassing conviction carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, prosecutors said.
H2-WHOA! Australian town bans bottled water
Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets have voted to ban the sale of bottled water, the first community in the country — and possibly the world — to take such a drastic step in the growing backlash against the industry.
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry
First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
America's 'Think Outside the Bottle' campaignOver the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?
Reusable bottles proposedTo prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote — the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute — which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 — a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
Ban criticized for removing consumer choiceOn Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!
"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry
First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
America's 'Think Outside the Bottle' campaignOver the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?
Reusable bottles proposedTo prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote — the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute — which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 — a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
Ban criticized for removing consumer choiceOn Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!
"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
G-8 leaders reach climate deal, tackle economy
Targeting global warming, leaders of the world's richest industrial countries pledged Wednesday to seek dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to slow dangerous climate change. They agreed for the first time that worldwide temperatures must not rise more than a few degrees.
However, their goals are nonbinding, and it's far from clear they will be met. The wealthy nations failed to persuade the leaders of big developing countries to promise to cut their own fast-spreading pollution, unable to overcome arguments that the well-established industrial giants aren't doing enough in the short term.
President Barack Obama and the leaders of the other wealthy Group of Eight nations agreed that global temperatures should be kept from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, in the fight against weather changes caused by mankind.
he results left some Western leaders cheering. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the group's statement a "historic agreement." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was "a clear step forward."
Environmental groups said the effort fell far short in its bid to cut carbon emissions that come mainly from energy production and that trap heat in the atmosphere. Still, climate-change experts said the measure on trying to limit temperature increases — with agreement by both the G-8 and a 17-member group of industrialized and developing nations meeting here this week — was an important step.
Rich and poor nationsAn increase up to the limit the leaders set wouldn't eliminate the risk of runaway climate change but would reduce it, experts said. Even a slight increase in average temperatures could wreak havoc on farmers around the globe, as seasons shift, crops fail and storms and droughts ravage fields.
"After a long struggle, all of the G-8 nations have finally accepted the 2-degree goal," said Merkel.
The United States and other G-8 nations set a goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. That's part of a plan to have all such gases, from rich and poor nations alike, fall by 50 percent globally by that year.
But developing countries feel the better-established nations aren't doing enough in the shorter term. They also worry that major reduction commitments on their parts, even if below the 80 percent target of rich nations, would hamper economic growth in China, India, Mexico, Brazil and many other non G-8 countries.
As for the target for limiting global temperatures, a summit statement said it reflected a "broad scientific view."
Until now, however, the U.S. had resisted embracing the target because it implied a commitment to dramatically change the way the world generates electricity, fuels its cars and builds its houses. U.S. businesses and the broader national economy could suffer badly under strict pollution limits, many argue.
Environmentalists welcomed the shift in U.S. policy but criticized the G-8's failure to agree on more immediate goals for the industrial countries. The long-term ambition "is too far off to matter — poor people are being hit today," said Antonio Hill, of the nonprofit Oxfam International.
Economic outlookThe G-8 leaders also addressed the global recession and agreed economic conditions are still too shaky to begin rolling back massive fiscal stimulus plans.
A statement said leaders "note some signs of stabilization," but it stressed the difficult outlook instead of counter-concerns over debt and high spending.
The leaders did commit to preparing exit strategies from the "unprecedented and concerted action" that has been taken to boost growth through government spending, low interest rates and expansive monetary policy. Germany, worried about running up crippling debt, has pressed for spending restraint, but other major economies including Britain, Japan and the United States won't rule out the need to pump in more money.
However, their goals are nonbinding, and it's far from clear they will be met. The wealthy nations failed to persuade the leaders of big developing countries to promise to cut their own fast-spreading pollution, unable to overcome arguments that the well-established industrial giants aren't doing enough in the short term.
President Barack Obama and the leaders of the other wealthy Group of Eight nations agreed that global temperatures should be kept from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, in the fight against weather changes caused by mankind.
he results left some Western leaders cheering. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called the group's statement a "historic agreement." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was "a clear step forward."
Environmental groups said the effort fell far short in its bid to cut carbon emissions that come mainly from energy production and that trap heat in the atmosphere. Still, climate-change experts said the measure on trying to limit temperature increases — with agreement by both the G-8 and a 17-member group of industrialized and developing nations meeting here this week — was an important step.
Rich and poor nationsAn increase up to the limit the leaders set wouldn't eliminate the risk of runaway climate change but would reduce it, experts said. Even a slight increase in average temperatures could wreak havoc on farmers around the globe, as seasons shift, crops fail and storms and droughts ravage fields.
"After a long struggle, all of the G-8 nations have finally accepted the 2-degree goal," said Merkel.
The United States and other G-8 nations set a goal of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. That's part of a plan to have all such gases, from rich and poor nations alike, fall by 50 percent globally by that year.
But developing countries feel the better-established nations aren't doing enough in the shorter term. They also worry that major reduction commitments on their parts, even if below the 80 percent target of rich nations, would hamper economic growth in China, India, Mexico, Brazil and many other non G-8 countries.
As for the target for limiting global temperatures, a summit statement said it reflected a "broad scientific view."
Until now, however, the U.S. had resisted embracing the target because it implied a commitment to dramatically change the way the world generates electricity, fuels its cars and builds its houses. U.S. businesses and the broader national economy could suffer badly under strict pollution limits, many argue.
Environmentalists welcomed the shift in U.S. policy but criticized the G-8's failure to agree on more immediate goals for the industrial countries. The long-term ambition "is too far off to matter — poor people are being hit today," said Antonio Hill, of the nonprofit Oxfam International.
Economic outlookThe G-8 leaders also addressed the global recession and agreed economic conditions are still too shaky to begin rolling back massive fiscal stimulus plans.
A statement said leaders "note some signs of stabilization," but it stressed the difficult outlook instead of counter-concerns over debt and high spending.
The leaders did commit to preparing exit strategies from the "unprecedented and concerted action" that has been taken to boost growth through government spending, low interest rates and expansive monetary policy. Germany, worried about running up crippling debt, has pressed for spending restraint, but other major economies including Britain, Japan and the United States won't rule out the need to pump in more money.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Exiled China Tycoon In U.S. Clean Car Venture: Source
Yang Rong, a Chinese automobile tycoon who fled the country after being accused of economic crimes, is preparing to launch an ambitious plan to make clean-tech cars in the United States, said a source.
The former chairman of Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Ltd, ranked by Forbes as China's third-richest man in 2001, will announce a plan later this month to set up a company in the southern U.S. state of Alabama, said the source with direct knowledge of the plan.
Yang could not be immediately reached for comment.
Support for the plan had come from former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most visible environmental activists and now a partner at U.S. venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said the source, declining to be more specific.
A spokeswoman for Gore said he was not immediately available to comment.
Yang's plans to return to the auto industry after fleeing to the United States in late 2002 first emerged in various Chinese media reports, which did not provide details.
Now living in California, he has hired a former senior executive of top U.S. carmaker General Motors Corp to run the firm's daily operations, said the source.
The firm is also seeking financial support from the U.S. Department of Energy, which is in charge of a mega-sized fund to support environmentally friendly energy projects, the source said.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, said such a venture could cost billions of dollars and would run headlong into tough competition.
"Until there is more detail, it is really hard to know," Cole said. "But I would still say good luck, because it is a very formidable task, particularly in the competitive market that already exists, and will be very much developing around the so-called clean cars."
SWEET HOME ALABAMA
Yang will cooperate with the Alabama state government on the project, expected to create thousands of jobs in its initial phase, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity as the source was not authorized to speak to the media.
"The Alabama government definitely welcomes the plan as the new firm, which owns big land in the state, will build a plant there and hire local workers," the source said.
Alabama economic development officials had no comment.
Yang was China's most influential carmaker at one time as he helped transform Brilliance from a stagnant state-owned auto factory into a top maker of mini-vans in the country.
Brilliance later became a household brand and a manufacturing partner of German carmaker BMW in China.
Yang's new company will manufacture cars in Alabama, with plans to sell them nationwide, while it also seeks partners in China where the tycoon hopes to produce cars for local consumers, said the source.
"All cars made in the U.S. will be sold in the U.S. and the firm will also make cars in China and sell cars to Chinese consumers, but key technologies will be definitely controlled by people in the U.S.," said the source.
However, the source acknowledged that Yang's politically sensitive background might lead to legal challenges for the firm's China plans because the government has not cleared his case.
The former chairman of Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Ltd, ranked by Forbes as China's third-richest man in 2001, will announce a plan later this month to set up a company in the southern U.S. state of Alabama, said the source with direct knowledge of the plan.
Yang could not be immediately reached for comment.
Support for the plan had come from former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most visible environmental activists and now a partner at U.S. venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, said the source, declining to be more specific.
A spokeswoman for Gore said he was not immediately available to comment.
Yang's plans to return to the auto industry after fleeing to the United States in late 2002 first emerged in various Chinese media reports, which did not provide details.
Now living in California, he has hired a former senior executive of top U.S. carmaker General Motors Corp to run the firm's daily operations, said the source.
The firm is also seeking financial support from the U.S. Department of Energy, which is in charge of a mega-sized fund to support environmentally friendly energy projects, the source said.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, said such a venture could cost billions of dollars and would run headlong into tough competition.
"Until there is more detail, it is really hard to know," Cole said. "But I would still say good luck, because it is a very formidable task, particularly in the competitive market that already exists, and will be very much developing around the so-called clean cars."
SWEET HOME ALABAMA
Yang will cooperate with the Alabama state government on the project, expected to create thousands of jobs in its initial phase, the source said, speaking on condition of anonymity as the source was not authorized to speak to the media.
"The Alabama government definitely welcomes the plan as the new firm, which owns big land in the state, will build a plant there and hire local workers," the source said.
Alabama economic development officials had no comment.
Yang was China's most influential carmaker at one time as he helped transform Brilliance from a stagnant state-owned auto factory into a top maker of mini-vans in the country.
Brilliance later became a household brand and a manufacturing partner of German carmaker BMW in China.
Yang's new company will manufacture cars in Alabama, with plans to sell them nationwide, while it also seeks partners in China where the tycoon hopes to produce cars for local consumers, said the source.
"All cars made in the U.S. will be sold in the U.S. and the firm will also make cars in China and sell cars to Chinese consumers, but key technologies will be definitely controlled by people in the U.S.," said the source.
However, the source acknowledged that Yang's politically sensitive background might lead to legal challenges for the firm's China plans because the government has not cleared his case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)