This weather is soooo strange - from 70's a day ago - to snow today - and back to the 80's predicted a day away. The snow is having a hard time of it - it's almost 40 degrees outside.
Can't wait till Spring really arrives! Will be interesting seeing what type of season Mother Nature has planned for us.
Today went to visit my store and coworkers - they are so cool - bought peninni fixins' - then dropped off a bunch of clothes and other nice things at the Goodwill Store - am home and feeling a bit more like myself after a large lunch with iced coffee. And NO SMOKING still...
Am taking a weeks vacation beginning Sunday to make sure by the time i begin work again, the flu/phnemonia/and whatever else germs/ will have gone wherever it is they go after attacking people...{where do those danged pesky peskles go???}
Hopefully away from all the wildclickers and their families!!!!
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
You and your 300 friends have supported 2,869,923.9 square feet!
~~~
the storm has started
...
another cloud of white fluffy stuff - hope it stays like this
We just got another really good rain, after one a week ago. Glad you are feeling better, Stradee.
Hey, Danon. This one is for you. Papa Bush and his cronies getting (or not) some of their just deserts.
Carlyle-Managed Fund In Default to Lenders
By Thomas Heath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 7, 2008; D01
Carlyle Capital, a publicly traded financial fund managed by the Carlyle Group, failed to meet lenders' minimum requirements on its $21.7 billion portfolio yesterday, sending ripples through markets.
Carlyle Capital, listed on the Euronext in Amsterdam, said it received notices from banks that it was in default on its loans, which were used to buy AAA-rated home-mortgage-backed bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Banks essentially issued what are known as margin calls. A lender issues a margin call to require a borrower to add money to an account when a stock's or bond's value drops below a certain level.
The margin calls also reflect the spreading turmoil in the capital markets, which is infecting even the highest-rated securities.
Carlyle Capital is run by Carlyle Group, the District-based private-equity firm that has earned outsize returns for its investors over the past two decades.
"This may be the first of many negatives for blue-chip firms," said William L. Walton, chairman of Allied Capital, a business-development company in the District. "I don't see this as a Carlyle-specific issue particularly. The larger issue is that most small, publicly traded financial firms are seeing their liabilities under pressure. I would expect Carlyle will manage their way through this."
James J. Angel, associate professor of finance at Robert E. McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, said the extent to which Carlyle's brand is damaged will depend on Carlyle Capital's outcome.
"Just getting a margin call is not that big a deal," Angel said. Carlyle Capital "may have losses on paper at the present, but it could be a very good investment in the long run. If they can meet the margin calls and if history shows it was a good trade after the fact, this situation may actually burnish [Carlyle Group's] reputation."
Margin calls at Carlyle Capital and other financial institutions helped send stock prices down significantly yesterday, with the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index falling 2.2 percent. Shares of Carlyle Capital fell 58 percent yesterday, to $5.
A financial rescue may have to come from Carlyle Group, which has put $150 million into Carlyle Capital in the past year. The world credit crisis first hit Carlyle Capital last summer.
Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman said yesterday that while the outlook for Carlyle Capital is unclear, the private-equity firm has limited exposure.
Money from Carlyle Group investors, mostly pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and wealthy individuals, is not at risk in Carlyle Capital, Ullman said. Only owners' money, not buyout fund money, goes into Carlyle Capital, he said. Carlyle Group has $75 billion under management from investors around the world.
Carlyle Capital has used about $670 million in cash equity to finance its $21.7 billion portfolio of securities issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Similar securities are being traded on markets at below their face value, which has caused Carlyle Capital's banks to ask the company to inject more cash.
Lenders have increased the fees they charge Carlyle Capital over the past year, which has also hurt its ability to pay. Some fees have risen from 1 percent of the loan to 3 percent, which can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars more on $20 billion in debt.
Donald B. Marron, founder of Lightyear Capital in New York and former chairman of PaineWebber Group, said Wall Street legends are made during crises like Carlyle's.
"Reputations in this business are made in the long term and . . . enhanced by how you deal with troubled times because everyone has trouble at one time or another," Marron said. "I expect [Carlyle] to deal with this extremely responsibly."
sumac,
You are soooo superb at bringing our attention to the matters that really count in our society.
Everyone is familiar with Halliburton and Cheney - that company - amidst a lot of public controversy and alledged crime in Iraq - earned approximately NINE BILLION American TAX Dollars each year the Iraq War has been waged.
Not one mention of the Carlyle Group was EVER mentioned - or, alluded to. So, it must be a SECRET Group - and, WHO is in charge of this group??
While Halliburton made NINE BILLION American tax dollars - the CARLYLE GROUP made approx. EIGHTEEN BILLION American TAX dollars PER year in the so called war in Iraq.
George Herbert Walker Bush is one of the establishing members of the Carlyle Group. His son - our current president of the USA - was a member of that group for two years. All he did was sit on the side and play games. After that he was dismissed from the group. Actually, for doing nothing.
Our president, George Walker Bush - during the Vietnam era - is said by his compatriates to have sat alone looking at magazines during his spell as a Texas Aviation National Guard member. He also is an AWOL for approx ONE year. And, never questioned..
Like his brother in Florida - JEB. who after stealing TWO BILLION dollars from the Medicare - was - after a FEDERAL????? Investigation declared - quote. "Too stupid to procecute."
And, his brother Neil - in Colorado - during the Savings and Loan specktacle - which cost the American Tax Payers approx. TWO BILLION American TAX Dollars.
JEB came out with FOUR Million American Tax dollars free and clear - duhhhh??????
Neil - came out with TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION American Tax dollars. Double DUHHHH.
All free and clear by law. ??????????????
Now - Just how did that happen????
Papa Bush did it.
He - and all his ONE PER CENT of the population SKULL and BONES friends - actually, I would not call them friends. They are slaves.
Our current - so called President - 'thu Dub' - who pretends to be a Texan - but, is from actually above the Mason-Dixon line - is a pretender to everything we Texans believe in. He is a Hammered **** for Brains person.
And, that's my personal opinion.
And a good one it is, Danon.
Clicked and going to have breakfast.
Thanks, sumac.
Weathers really very nice again today, plan staying outdoors doing a bit of gardening, not strenuous though - plus adding to the donation bin- more stuff from the garage - sweeping, and sprucing...wildlife feeders replenished, etc.
Wow...poignant article and wondering why the Carlyle Group isn't sitting in jail somewhere and what laws protect U.S. companies from arms dealing and funding wars for profit. The best enemies money can buy, eh George?
Meet The Carlyle
Group...http://www.angelfire.com/indie/pearly/htmls/bush-carlyle.html
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
That's a good site and informative, Stradee.
If ANYONE would care to take the time to read it and also look at some of the suggested sites - I can't believe anyone would not think the Bush family and the current president should not be in jail for stealing America from Americans.
Dan, if those responsible for the conflict of interest policies set forth by the current administration were indicted and convicted - the sounds of cell doors being slammed and locked would be deafening.
Wonder what sort of 'margin' call Congress has planned for the Carlyle Group...
Excellent material at that site, Stradee. Spells things out very clearly. Someone (Seymour Hersch?) should write a long article for The New Yorker, as I doubt that the Council on Foreign Policy would have the guts to print it. Don't know if there is enough for a full length book.
Yet another Sunday morning - my 3,403rd in a row.
Great clicks, Wildclickers.
sumac, That is a shocking article. I didn't finish it but I will have to later. Thanks for posting it.
CLICK
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
Good information, sue!
For many years we've attempted alerting the general public regarding farm animals and the tons of toxins given the animals each year. If we just concentrated on the amount of antibiotics, sterioids, and other inoculations given the animals, toxins from farms seeping into ground water, and the foods contaminants ingested by people {physical development of children begin earlier and earlier - caused by the growth hormones fed to livestock} Says much for not purchasing anything that isn't organically grown.
Americans though are making better choices, even if we arn't seeing a decrease in the amount of factory farms - although it is getting tougher for factory farms to set up business here in the United States.
Not good enough for me though. No factory farms will do wonders for the enviornment.
Yeah - 9/11 this whenever i read where a company cites 'national security reasonings' for not releasing data when toxins and pollutants are innundating drinking water - as if there wearn't enough of that from gross polluters - hill top mining - oil rigs - the list endless...will take an investigative report of the highest order.
Thanks for the articles, sue. Very informative and good reading. Disturbing though is the amount of politics involved - the oceans don't have much time for votes - neither do the sea mammals depending upon habitat for life.
http://rainforest.care2.com/i?p=583091674
You and your 300 friends have supported 2,870,696.6 square feet!
~~~
What a heap of snow we got! the drifts are over 3 feet high in many spots - past my car's door handles. I'm not going to bother digging it out for a bit.
~~~
Wow! Sunday and I'm all clicked! Been clicking every day, but not getting the messages. Oh well! It's windy but sunny today!
This is the lead story in today's Washington Post:
Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 10, 2008; A01
The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.
Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."
Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising.
For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to address global warming."
"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves."
James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the idea that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is "something we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."
Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting CO2concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm).
But Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.
Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
"This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years."
While natural cycles remove roughly half of human-emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within a hundred years, a significant portion persists for thousands of years. Some of this carbon triggers deep-sea warming, which keeps raising the global average temperature even after emissions halt.
Researchers have predicted for a long time that warming will persist even after the world's carbon emissions start to fall and that countries will have to dramatically curb their carbon output in order to avert severe climate change. Last year's report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said industrialized nations would have to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 to limit CO2concentrations to the 450 ppm goal, and the world as a whole would have to reduce emissions by 50 to 80 percent.
European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. "If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he said.
The two new studies outline the challenge in greater detail, and on a longer time scale, than many earlier studies. Schmittner's study, for example, projects how the Earth will warm for the next 2,000 years.
But some climate researchers who back major greenhouse gas reductions said it is unrealistic to expect policymakers to think in terms of such vast time scales.
"People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end."
Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research emphasized that some uncertainties surround the strength of the natural carbon cycle and the dynamics of ocean warming, which in turn would affect the accuracy of Caldeira's modeling. "Neither of these are known precisely," he said.
Although computer models used by scientists to project changes in the climate have become increasingly powerful, scientists acknowledge that no model is a perfect reflection of the complex dynamics involved and how they will evolve with time.
Still, O'Neill said the modeling "helps clarify thinking about long-term policy goals. If we want to reduce warming to a certain level, there's a fixed amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. After that, we can't emit any more, at all."
Caldeira and his colleague, H. Damon Matthews, a geography professor at Concordia University in Montreal, emphasized this point in their paper, concluding that "each unit of CO2emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales."
Steve Gardiner, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington who studies climate change, said the studies highlight that the argument over global warming "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers of them are largely put off until future generations."
When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible."
sumac, thanks for the articles. I had seen a news segment concerning the water situation. It's not suprising, considering how negligent we humans are with our trash.
ehBeth, I do believe you have the Northern end of the cold front that gave us Texans our snow - - -
Have a great week folks.
