get rich biorules

The global rich are going green as never before. This first Sunday Times Green Rich List shows that the enthusiasm among the world’s wealthiest for investments in areas as diverse as electric cars, solar power and geothermal energy is unaffected by the recession. Read the full article
Click on the names to read detailed files on each entry
Rank		Name		Country		Wealth		Green investment
1		Warren Buffett		USA		£27bn		Wind power
2		Bill Gates		USA		£26bn		Renewable fuel
3		Ingvar Kamprad		Sweden		£22bn		Renewable energy
4		Marcel Brenninkmeijer		Holland		£19bn		Natural power
5		Mukesh Ambani		India		£15bn		Life sciences
6		Michael Bloomberg		USA		£14.4bn		Natural energy
7		Michael Otto		Germany		£13.2bn		Green products
8		Paul Allen		USA		£11.5bn		Natural fuels
9		Donald Bren		USA		£8.2bn		Environmental research
10=		Sergey Brin		USA		£7.5bn		Green energy
10=		Larry Page		USA		£7.5bn		Green energy
12		Serge Dassault		France		£7.5bn		Electric cars
13		Andreas and Thomas Strungmann		Germany		£6.8bn		Solar power
14		Hansjörg Wyss		Switzerland		£6bn		Open spaces
15		Philip Anschutz		USA		£5.8bn		Wind power
16		Hans Rausing		UK		£4bn		Packaging
17		Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen		Denmark		£3bn		Toymaker
18		Dennis Washington		USA		£2.7bn		Conservation
19		Alicia and Tannetta Fentener van Vlissingen		Holland		£2.4bn		Conservation
20		José Manuel Entrecanales		Spain		£2.3bn		Renewable energy
21		Aloys Wobben		Germany		£2.2bn		Wind turbines
22		Norbert Rethmann		Germany		£2bn		Waste services
23=		Bill Koch		USA		£1.9bn		Renewable energy
23=		Stephan Schmidheiny		Switzerland		£1.9bn		Sustainable development
25=		Nicolas Berggruen		Switzerland		£1.8bn		Wind power
25=		Gordon Moore		USA		£1.8bn		Bio-diversity
25=		T Boone Pickens		USA		£1.8bn		Natural power
25=		Jeff Skoll		Canada		£1.8bn		Electric cars
29=		Stein Erik Hagen		Norway		£1.7bn		Electric cars
29=		Theodore Lerner		USA		£1.7bn		Green sports
29=		David Rockefeller		USA		£1.7bn		Sustainable agriculture
32=		Edward Bass		USA		£1.5bn		Eco research
32=		Nicky Oppenheimer		S Africa		£1.5bn		Wildlife conservation
34		John Whittaker		UK		£1.3bn		Green energy
35=		Sir Richard Branson		UK		£1.2bn		Renewable energy
35=		Ted Turner		USA		£1.2bn		Wildlife conservation
37		Otto Happel		Germany		£1.1bn		Solar power
38=		Julian Robertson		USA		£1bn		Global warming
38=		Tom Siebel		USA		£1bn		Alternative energy
40=		Carl Berg		USA		£900m		Clean technology
40=		Tom Golisano		USA		£900m		Natural resources
42=		Nicholas Pritzker		USA		£800m		Electric cars
42=		Peter Sperling		USA		£800m		Renewable energy
44=		John Doerr		USA		£750m		Green venture capitalist
44=		Caroline Getty and Anne Earhart		USA		£750m		Conservation
46=		Sebastian Pinera		Chile		£700m		Conservation
46=		Petter Stordalen		Norway		£700m		Renewable energy
48		Jorgen Philip-Sorensen		UK		£650m		Eco-consumerism
49		Tulsi Tanti		India		£648m		Wind Turbines
50		Jaiprakash Gaur		India		£620m		Wind power
51		Brad Kelley		USA		£570m		Wildlife conservation
52=		Vinod Khosla		USA		£560m		Alternative energy
52=		Xiaofeng Peng		China		£560m		Solar power
54		Michael Ahearn		USA		£550m		Solar power
55=		Felix Dennis		UK		£500m		Tree planting
55=		Jim Mellon		UK		£500m		Solar power
55=		Axel and Erik Schweitzer		Germany		£500m		Recycling
58		Michael Moritz		USA		£475m		Alternative energy
59		Cheung Yan and family		China		£470m		Paper recycling
60		Frank Asbeck		Germany		£440m		Solar power
61=		Wendy McCaw		USA		£400m		Environmental research
61=		David Werklund		Canada		£400m		Oil recycling
61=		Selim Zilkha		USA		£400m		Renewable energy
64		Wang Chuanfu		China		£375m		Eco-friendly transport
65		Shi Zhengrong		China		£370m		Solar power
66		Morris Kahn		Israel		£350m		Environmental protection
67		Phillip Sheppard and family		UK		£330m		Recycling
68		Dou Zhenggang		China		£325m		Waste-to-energy
69		Yoon Seok-Keum		S Korea		£310m		Solar power
70=		Bruce Cheng		Taiwan		£300m		Renewable energy
70=		Johan Eliasch		UK		£300m		Forest preservation
70=		Teresa Heinz		USA		£300m		Environmental research
70=		Ralph Sarich		Australia		£300m		Carbon-free development
70=		Lawrence Tomlinson		UK		£300m		Green transport
70=		Robert Wilson		USA		£300m		Conservation
76		Lu Xiang-yang		China		£275m		Green transport
77		Thomas Domenig		Switzerland		£260m		Conservation
78=		Anu Aga		India		£250m		Energy conservation
78=		Jin Baofang		China		£250m		Solar power
78=		Angela Bennett		Australia		£250m		Carbon-free development
78=		Miao Shouliang		China		£250m		Renewable energy
78=		Akio Toyoda and family		Japan		£250m		Green transport
83		Liansheng Miao		China		£222m		Solar power
84=		Zhu Gongshan		China		£220m		Solar power
84=		Olivia Lum		Singapore		£220m		Clean energy
84=		Jöel Séché and family		France		£220m		Renewable energy
87=		Elon Musk		S Africa		£210m		Solar power and green transport
87=		Roxanne Quimby		USA		£210m		Conservation
89		Joan Smith		USA		£205m		Water conservation
90=		Jean-Michel Germa		France		£200m		Wind power
90=		Zac Goldsmith		UK		£200m		Environmental philantropy
90=		Lu Yonghua		China		£200m		Solar power
90=		Huang Ming		China		£200m		Solar power
90=		Terry Peabody		Australia		£200m		Waste and industrial recycling
90=		Zhang Weihua		China		£200m		Industrial recycling
90=		Chen Wukui and family		China		£200m		Solar power
90=		Li Xianshou		China		£200m		Solar power
90=		Qu Xiaohua		China		£200m		Solar power
90=		Huh Yong-do		S Korea		£200m		Wind power
90=		Jifan Gao		China		£200m		Solar powe

Pointless struggle

'Struggle' to meet UK renewable targets

By Jonny Dymond BBC News

Some doubt the ability of the UK to meet renewable energy targets

Andrew Bainbridge, the head of Britain's Major Energy Users Council, appears physically pained when he discusses the British government's plans for a vast increase in renewable power generation.
"I remember having lunch on the sea front at Great Yarmouth, and watching a bank of windmills not turning for one hour, and I thought, please, please can we have some nuclear plants, before the lights go out," he told a recent meeting organised by the think tank Open Europe.
"It is not feasible," he added, "to diversify away from fossil fuel dependence to reduce carbon emissions so quickly, in pursuit of arbitrary, politically determined targets of questionable practicality."
The target, which the British government has signed up to, is part of a wider EU plan to increase renewable energy generation to 20% across Europe.
'Extremely challenging'
Under the scheme, Britain is expected to produce 15% of its energy from renewable sources within the next 12 years.

It's going to mean a national challenge Lord Freeman

The country has a higher renewable mountain to climb than some other EU member states, as its base is so low.
At present, says the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), only 1.8% of Britain's energy is generated from renewable sources.
Much of the burden will have to be borne by wind power. A ten-fold increase in energy from on and offshore farms will be required by 2012.
"Extremely challenging" is how the House of Lord's European committee described the UK target in its report earlier this year.
The report is littered with clarion calls for urgent action on nearly every aspect of renewable energy generation. Lord Freeman, the chairman of the sub committee that drew up the report, fairly crackles with that urgency.
"It's going to mean a national challenge," he says. "If we are serious about greenhouse gases and climate change then renewable energy must be a contribution, and every single citizen has got to rise to that challenge, as well as the government."
Cost implications
The effort from individuals comes from energy efficiency, but perhaps also in accepting higher electricity bills - renewable energy currently costs more.

A tenfold increase in energy from wind power is required by 2012.

Dr Lisa Woolhouse of SKM consulting, whose research the House of Lords used, suggest the premium for renewable energy is somewhere between 10 and 15%.
Renewable energy may be cheaper in the long term, as fossil fuel prices rise again, and a lot cheaper if you take into account the costs of dealing with climate change.
Much of the burden for renewable energy will fall on wind power, because other renewable technologies are not mature enough or cannot be put in place quickly enough.
Many hurdles
Open Europe has grave doubts, it believes that as a method of cutting carbon emissions, extensive investment in wind farms simply does not add up.
It would be far cheaper, they say, to pay for the control of deforestation, or build "carbon sinks" through reforestation - or concentrate on energy efficiency to reduce demand.
The renewables target is pretty much a done deal now. But it faces many accusations that it is something for today's politicians to sign up to, and for tomorrow's politicians to fail to meet.
Renewables-sceptics say there are many hurdles to be jumped; the planning problems, the tight supply of turbines and off-shore equipment, access to the national grid.
Environmentalists have a response for each one. Dr Woolhouse says most of the obstacles can be overcome. But will the target be met?
"I don't really think it will. I think we are going to be very lucky to achieve our target, to be honest."

Energy policy 'too wind focused'

The CBI says the government targets wind power too much

The UK must invest more in nuclear and clean coal energy and put less emphasis on wind power if it wants a secure low-carbon future, business leaders say.

The CBI says government energy policy is "disjointed" and it is urging a "more balanced" energy mix.
The current approach means the UK might miss climate change targets, it added.
The government said putting in place a balanced mix of renewables, new nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels was at the heart of its energy policy.
It is due to set out its Energy White Paper on Wednesday.
But the CBI is calling for more action in its report "Decision Time".
"The government's disjointed approach is deterring the private sector investment needed to get our energy system up to scratch, bolster security and cut emissions," said CBI deputy director general John Cridland.
"While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants.
"If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket."
Energy war
The CBI's comments are based on computer modelling of current power sector investment by consultants McKinsey.
The CBI wants the government to:
• reduce the percentage of wind power expected by 2020 under the Renewables Strategy later this week, to encourage investment in other low-carbon energy sources.

Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst The document is timed to influence the government's Energy White Paper due this week. It is the latest salvo in the business war between nuclear, coal and wind. A recent study by the consultants Poyry suggested that wind power could become so dominant in the UK that it leaves nuclear and CCS coal in competition with each other instead of holding the dominant position they have enjoyed since the 1950s. The McKinsey study projects that under 'business as usual' by 2030, gas would provide 36% of the UK's energy, coal 1%, wind 24%, nuclear 20%, other renewables 12%, and clean coal 8%. That would mean 64% of electricity would come from low-carbon technologies, behind the Climate Change Committee's 78% target. The investment cost is estimated at £125-£173bn. Marsh wind farm officially opened

• speed up the planning process for energy supplies
• produce rules and funding arrangements for for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration plants
• accelerate investment in the grid
• improve energy efficiency in the electricity, heating and transport sectors, including offering financial sweeteners for consumers choosing more efficient products.
'No surprise'
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: "We know that big investments need certainty, and we're on track with our promise to remove costly unnecessary barriers to new nuclear, such as the planning reforms already in train."
Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and formerly a member of the CBI's energy policy committee, told the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin that the increase in wind power was threatening to the big power generators who he said dominated the committee.
"This document is no surprise. EDF have been lobbying very hard for less obligations on renewables, saying it will distract from nuclear," he said.
"This is precisely what Patricia Hewitt [the former trade and industry secretary] warned would happen when she published the 'no-new-nukes' 2003 energy white paper."

Irish Food gone

Bee decline 'may hit food crops'

Swift action is needed "to halt the bee decline"

Food production in Northern Ireland could be hit by the decline in the wild bee population, a leading beekeeper has said.
Three of the UK's 25 species are already extinct and more face the same fate unless fast action is taken.
Jim Fletcher of the Ulster Beekeepers' Association said it had been a very bad spring for the bees.
"It was a very bad April and May and the bees have not been able to forage as they require," he said.
"The bumble bees have had problems with late flowering and the queens haven't had the energy to build big nests for the production of their workers."
The bee problem had been ongoing for several years and was partly down to people having "nice tidy gardens, fields and hedgerows", said Mr Fletcher, who has about 500,000 bees in his County Down orchard.
"It means there are no wild places for the bees to nest and for the bumble bees to produce their colonies."
A tiny mite had decimated the wild bee population in Northern Ireland, he said.
"This is to such an extent that we haven't got sufficient bees to pollinate the major fruit producing crops."
Bees help to pollinate every flowering plant.
"The possibility is that if we do not take sufficient care, that we may run into problems with food production."
Mr Fletcher advised people to "leave a few wild corners in their garden" to help the bees.
'Falling bee numbers'
Ulster Unionist environment spokesman Sam Gardiner called on all gardeners to grow more traditional local plants "to help reverse the decline in the bee population".
"Bees perform a vital role in the pollination of plants and are vital to eco-systems. Without bees, many native species of plants will disappear and this will have a knock-on effect on other species," he said.
"Many crops depend on bees for pollination and some, such as broad, field and runner beans are heavily dependent on them. Without the insects there would be little or no crop to harvest."
A new organisation - the Bumblebee Conservation Trust - has been launched with the aim of halting falling bee numbers.
Enthusiasts behind the trust, based at Stirling University, have urged as many people as possible to get involved.
As part of its conservation work, the organisation is encouraging the public to plant wildflowers, which provide nectar and pollen for bees and other wildlife.

Bees and flowers decline

Bees and flowers decline in step

See the bees

Diversity in bees and wild flowers is declining together, at least in Britain and the Netherlands, research shows. Scientists from the two countries examined records kept by enthusiasts dating back more than a century.
They write in the journal Science that habitat alterations, climate change and modern industrial farming are possible factors in the linked decline.
There is a chance, they say, that the decline in pollinating bees could have detrimental effects on food production.
"The economic value of pollination worldwide is thought to be between £20bn and £50bn ($37bn and $91bn) each year," said Simon Potts from the University of Reading, UK, one of the scientists involved.
While declines in Britain and the Netherlands might not indicate a global trend, the team says, it is an issue deserving serious future research.
Costs of specialism
Study leader Koos Biesmeijer from the UK's University of Leeds is not the first biologist to note the value of amateur enthusiasts to British conservation studies, and will not be the last.
"We have relied here on records kept by enthusiasts; just like bird-watchers keep records of bird-sightings, they keep records of bees and hoverflies and plants," he told the BBC News website.
"In the UK, insect records come from the Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society (BWars) and the Hoverfly Recording Scheme (HRS), while in Holland the Dutch Entomological Society does something similar.

The ultimate drivers are changes in our landscapes; intensive agriculture, extensive use of pesticides, drainage, nitrogen deposition Koos Biesmeijer Pesticides blame for bee fall

"The records go back even into the last part of the 19th Century, and then some of these enthusiasts have gone back into the scientific literature and verified records." From these records comes a picture of reducing diversity among bees and wild flowering plants.
Bee species which rely on certain plants, and plants which rely on certain bees, have fared worse; more flexible species of both have done better.
In Britain, bee species which have increased since 1980 are those which were already common before.
The researchers also looked at hoverflies, and found a mixed picture, with diversity remaining roughly constant in Britain but appearing to increase marginally in the Netherlands.
Hoverflies do pollinate plants, but are less choosy than many bee species, and do not depend so directly on nectar to feed their young.
Overall, plants which pollinate via wind or water appear to be spreading, while those which rely on insects decline.
Holistic handling
If the diversity of bees and plants is decreasing, one question is: which declined first?
This study cannot provide an answer, though it appears the fates of both are intertwined; but the root causes of the decline are clear, Dr Biesmeijer argues.
"The ultimate drivers are changes in our landscapes; intensive agriculture, extensive use of pesticides, drainage, nitrogen deposition.
"All of these factors favour subsets of plants and subsets of bees.
"And if you want to prevent them you have to look at the ecosystem level, protecting the habitat and the groups of species."
Where habitats have been restored, for example under agro-environment schemes, bee and plant diversity has sometimes started to re-emerge, he said.
While such changes may have significant impacts nationally, the team points out that the environments of Britain and the Netherlands, with their high population densities and long histories of agriculture, contain two of the least "natural" landscapes on Earth.
Other countries, with a greater proportion of natural habitat, may not show the same declining trend, they say; but given the importance of bees for pollination, they suggest it would be worth finding out.