Latest news with #emissions
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
2 Reasons to Like CECO and 1 to Stay Skeptical
CECO Environmental has been treading water for the past six months, recording a small return of 4% while holding steady at $30.66. Is now the time to buy CECO? Or does the price properly account for its business quality and fundamentals? Find out in our full research report, it's free. With roots dating back to 1869 and a focus on creating cleaner industrial operations, CECO Environmental (NASDAQ:CECO) provides technology and expertise that helps industrial companies reduce emissions, treat water, and improve energy efficiency across various sectors. Reviewing a company's long-term sales performance reveals insights into its quality. Even a bad business can shine for one or two quarters, but a top-tier one grows for years. Luckily, CECO Environmental's sales grew at an excellent 12.6% compounded annual growth rate over the last five years. Its growth surpassed the average business services company and shows its offerings resonate with customers. Adjusted operating margin is an important measure of profitability as it shows the portion of revenue left after accounting for all core expenses – everything from the cost of goods sold to advertising and wages. It's also useful for comparing profitability across companies because it excludes non-recurring expenses, interest on debt, and taxes. CECO Environmental's adjusted operating margin rose by 10.8 percentage points over the last five years, as its sales growth gave it immense operating leverage. Its adjusted operating margin for the trailing 12 months was 14.7%. We track the long-term change in earnings per share (EPS) because it highlights whether a company's growth is profitable. CECO Environmental's EPS grew at a weak 2.7% compounded annual growth rate over the last five years, lower than its 12.6% annualized revenue growth. This tells us the company became less profitable on a per-share basis as it expanded. CECO Environmental's positive characteristics outweigh the negatives, but at $30.66 per share (or 23.3× forward P/E), is now the time to initiate a position? See for yourself in our in-depth research report, it's free. Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election sent major indices to all-time highs, but stocks have retraced as investors debate the health of the economy and the potential impact of tariffs. While this leaves much uncertainty around 2025, a few companies are poised for long-term gains regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate, like our Top 9 Market-Beating Stocks. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 183% over the last five years (as of March 31st 2025). Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Kadant (+351% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump's tax bill seeks to prevent AI regulations. Experts fear a heavy toll on the planet
US Republicans are pushing to pass a major spending bill that includes provisions to prevent states from enacting regulations on artificial intelligence. Such untamed growth in AI will take a heavy toll upon the world's dangerously overheating climate, experts have warned. About 1bn tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide are set to be emitted in the US just from AI over the next decade if no restraints are placed on the industry's enormous electricity consumption, according to estimates by researchers at Harvard University and provided to the Guardian. This 10-year timeframe, a period of time in which Republicans want a 'pause' of state-level regulations upon AI, will see so much electricity use in data centers for AI purposes that the US will add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than Japan does annually, or three times the yearly total from the UK. The exact amount of emissions will depend on power plant efficiency and how much clean energy will be used in the coming years, but the blocking of regulations will also be a factor, said Gianluca Guidi, visiting scholar at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. 'By limiting oversight, it could slow the transition away from fossil fuels and reduce incentives for more energy-efficient AI energy reliance,' Guidi said. 'We talk a lot about what AI can do for us, but not nearly enough about what it's doing to the planet. If we're serious about using AI to improve human wellbeing, we can't ignore the growing toll it's taking on climate stability and public health.' Donald Trump has vowed that the US will become 'the world capital of artificial intelligence and crypto' and has set about sweeping aside guardrails around AI development and demolishing rules limiting greenhouse gas pollution. The 'big beautiful' reconciliation bill passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives would bar states from adding their own regulations upon AI and the GOP-controlled Senate is poised to pass its own version doing likewise. Unrestricted AI use is set to deal a sizable blow to efforts to tackle the climate crisis, though, by causing surging electricity use from a US grid still heavily reliant upon fossil fuels such as gas and coal. AI is particularly energy-hungry – one ChatGPT query needs about 10 times as much electricity as a Google search query. Carbon emissions from data centers in the US have tripled since 2018, with an upcoming Harvard research paper finding that the largest 'hyperscale' centers now account for 2% of all US electricity use. 'AI is going to change our world,' Manu Asthana, chief executive of the PJM Interconnection, the US largest grid, has predicted. Asthana estimated that almost all future increase in electricity demand will come from data centers, adding the equivalent of 20m new homes to the grid in the next five years. The explosive growth of AI has, meanwhile, worsened the recent erosion in climate commitments made by big tech companies. Last year, Google admitted that its greenhouse gas emissions have grown by 48% since 2019 due to its own foray into AI, meaning that 'reducing emissions may be challenging' as AI further takes hold. Proponents of AI, and some researchers, have argued that advances in AI will aid the climate fight by increasing efficiencies in grid management and other improvements. Others are more skeptical. 'That is just a greenwashing maneuver, quite transparently,' said Alex Hanna, director of research at the Distributed AI Research Institute. 'There have been some absolutely nonsense things said about this. Big tech is mortgaging the present for a future that will never come.' While no state has yet placed specific green rules upon AI, they may look to do so given cuts to federal environmental regulations, with state lawmakers urging Congress to rethink the ban. 'If we were expecting any rule-making at the federal level around data centers it's surely off the table now,' said Hanna. 'It's all been quite alarming to see.' Republican lawmakers are undeterred, however. The proposed moratorium cleared a major hurdle over the weekend when the Senate parliamentarian decided that the proposed ban on state and local regulation of AI can remain in Trump's tax and spending mega-bill. The Texas senator Ted Cruz, the Republican who chairs the Senate committee on commerce, science and transportation, changed the language to comply with the Byrd Rule, which prohibits 'extraneous matters' from being included in such spending bills. The provision now refers to a 'temporary pause' on regulation instead of a moratorium. It also includes a $500m addition to a grant program to expand access to broadband internet across the country, preventing states from receiving those funds if they attempt to regulate AI. The proposed AI regulation pause has provoked widespread concern from Democrats. The Massachusetts senator Ed Markey, a climate hawk, says he has prepared an amendment to strip the 'dangerous' provision from the bill. 'The rapid development of artificial intelligence is already impacting our environment, raising energy prices for consumers, straining our grid's ability to keep the lights on, draining local water supplies, spewing toxic pollution in communities, and increasing climate emissions,' Markey told the Guardian. 'However, instead of allowing states to protect the public and our planet, Republicans want to ban them from regulating AI for 10 years. It is shortsighted and irresponsible.' The Massachusetts congressman Jake Auchincloss has also called the proposal 'a terrible idea and an unpopular idea'. 'I think we have to realize that AI is going to suffuse in rapid order many dimensions of healthcare, media, entertainment, education, and to just proscribe any regulation of AI in any use case for the next decade is unbelievably reckless,' he said. Some Republicans have also come out against the provision, including the Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn and the Missouri senator Josh Hawley. An amendment to remove the pause from the bill would require the support of at least four Republican senators to pass. Hawley is said to be willing to introduce an amendment to remove the provision later this week if it is not eliminated beforehand. Earlier this month, the Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted she had missed the provision in the House version of the bill, and that she would not have backed the legislation if she had seen it. The far-right House Freedom caucus, of which Greene is a member, has also come out against the AI regulation pause.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Wreckers, money woes and mutirão: 10 things we learned about Cop30 from Bonn climate talks
Two weeks of negotiations on the climate crisis have just concluded in Bonn in preparation for the Cop30 summit taking place in Brazil this November. What did we learn? Limiting global heating to 1.5C above preindustrial levels is vital for a healthy planet, but hopes of doing so are rapidly vanishing as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, and temperatures soar. The main task for Cop30 in Belém this November is for every country to submit a national plan, required under the 2015 Paris agreement, to cut carbon as far as necessary to hold to the 1.5C limit. Few countries have submitted their plans, called nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which set out a target on emissions to 2035 and an indication of the measures that will be taken to meet them. They were due in February, but the presidency of Donald Trump, his vacillations over tariffs and the prospect of a global trade war led many to adopt a 'wait and see' approach. Military conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran have further frightened governments and taken attention away from the climate. Brazil is urging all countries to come forward with their NDCs in September, in time for the UN to assess them before Cop30 begins. Even if they meet the deadline, however, it was abundantly clear from the preliminary negotiations in Bonn that the NDCs will not add up to the emissions cuts needed to stay within 1.5C, assuming that is still possible. That leaves Brazil with a dilemma. The Cop host has no control over how countries set their NDCs, as that is done by national governments before they arrive in Belém. No country is likely to revise its NDC at the Cop. But a summit that ends with inadequate NDCs that would lead to global heating far in excess of 1.5C or even 2C will be labelled a failure. Brazil must find a way to show how NDCs that come up short can be improved or remedied, or how countries can collaborate to make faster and deeper cuts, if it is to keep the goals of Paris alive. Work at Bonn was held up for two days because countries could not agree on the agenda for the meeting, and by the end they had little progress to show on key issues. This was just a foretaste of the fights and recriminations that Brazil can expect in earnest at Cop30. As well as the withdrawal of the US from the Paris agreement, and the dangerous geopolitical circumstances, Brazil will have to contend with a cadre of countries and vested interests that want to stymie the talks. Developed countries are widely, and reasonably, blamed for their failures to cut emissions fast enough and to provide the finance needed by the poor world. But behind the scenes many fossil fuel producers and their allies that are supposed to be on the side of the developing world are also happy to hold up negotiations, exploiting the complexity of the talks to cover their actions. If Bonn was frustrating, Cop30 could be far worse. For developing countries, the key question remains: how can they gain access to the resources they need to protect their citizens against the impacts of climate breakdown? Many are already experiencing 'loss and damage' from extreme weather, in the form of droughts, floods, heatwaves and encroaching seas. But the funding that developed countries promised has been slow to arrive. Richard Sherman, a South African delegate, told the Bonn conference: 'There is no money. The funds that we have are not able to support the need.' At Cop29, developed countries promised that $1.3tn a year would flow to the poor world by 2035, made up of at least $300bn from public sources and the rest from innovative forms of finance such as levies on polluting activities, carbon trading and private investment. Only the broad outlines were agreed, however. There is not yet a blueprint showing how the money can be delivered and distributed over the next decade. Last year's hosts, Azerbaijan, are collaborating with Brazil to produce a roadmap with more detail. Delegates warn it must set out a clear timetable of concrete actions, rather than more vague promises. At recent Cops, hosts have taken to having special meetings based on traditional formats. This began at Durban in 2011, when as the negotiations stretched long past their official deadline, heads of delegation moved into special 'indaba' meetings, named after a traditional Zulu gathering of tribal elders. Since then, Cop28 in Dubai had its 'majlis', and Cop29 in Baku had a 'qurultay', modelled on a Turkic chieftains' gathering. At Cop30, delegates will be invited to a 'mutirão', a Portuguese word derived from the Indigenous Tupi-Guarani language that refers to a group coming together to work on a shared task. Carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is the main greenhouse gas affecting the planet, but increasingly scientists and activists are focusing on another gas: methane. Far more potent, it escapes from fossil fuel extraction sites and is produced by livestock and farming. Methane breaks down in the atmosphere much faster than carbon dioxide, but warms the planet about 80 times as much while it lasts, so cutting methane gives more bang for the emissions reduction buck. Given its smaller number of sources, plugging emissions of methane should also be easier than cutting carbon. Governments have tended to ignore the potential for methane cuts, but pressure is growing for the gas to be included prominently in countries' NDCs at Cop30. At Cop28 in Dubai, countries agreed for the first time to 'transition away from fossil fuels', a historic commitment that should have signalled a dramatic shift in the global economy. No sooner was that conference over, however, than some countries were seeking to unpick the resolution. Last year, at Cop29, attempts to reinforce the language on the transition, and to set out clearer plans on how it could be brought about, met fierce – though sometimes covert – opposition, and came to nothing. Many campaigners want to bring the subject back at Cop30. But Brazil is resisting having a 'cover decision' – a wide-ranging text that would incorporate all sorts of resolutions, arguing that the resolutions of previous Cops need not be revisited. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Bonn ended without a clear path forward on the issue, but it is unlikely to disappear before Cop30. Every Cop generates its own baggage – presidents and host countries want to put their own stamp on proceedings, and so bring forward pet projects that focus on one aspect of the climate crisis, such as electric vehicles, or coal, or aspects of food or forestry. Over the years, these initiatives have proliferated so that now there are scores of them, some still useful but others in effect left orphaned as the ministers who invented them have faded into political obscurity and the money behind them has been spent. Brazil is aiming to tackle some of this bloat. But the wider and more radical reforms to the Cop process that some have called for will not be on the programme. Belém, a rainforest city and port, lies near the mouth of the Amazon River. While charming, it has never been a tourist mecca and to have an estimated 60,000 people, and perhaps many more, land on its shores will be a major strain. It seemed as if every conversation in Bonn, whether it started on NDCs, climate finance or the substantive issues of climate governance, always ended up on the same subject: logistics. With just four months to go, most people have yet to secure anywhere to stay in Belém. Brazil has promised that 29,000 rooms and 55,000 beds will be made available, but so far these have yet to materialise. Cruise ships are being pressed into service, supplying more than 3,000 cabins, and some people are gratefully looking forward to spending a fortnight in shipping containers. But the prices being asked in advance are astronomical, and beyond the reach of most developing country delegations and climate activist charities. Without them, the Cop will be skewed towards moneyed interests, will reinforce global inequalities and will fail the most vulnerable. Choosing Belém for Cop30 has created a logistical conundrum that the hosts have yet to solve. The choice of Belém was meant to highlight the plight of the Amazon rainforest, one of the world's greatest carbon sinks and vital to the health of the planet – and which is under threat, not just from deforestation, but from the climate crisis itself, as rapidly rising temperatures could push the Amazon over a tipping point that would transform it from rainforest into a savannah-like state. That would be catastrophic for the planet, potentially leading to further rapid escalations in temperature from which there could be no return. But the spotlight on Belém has also brought into focus Brazil's own adventures with fossil fuels. Oil and gas deposits discovered in and around the Amazon, and off the coast not far from Belém, are being considered for exploitation. Brazil's oil sector regulator, ANP, will auction the exploration rights to 172 oil and gas blocks spanning 56,000 sq miles (146,000 sq km), an area more than twice the size of Scotland, most of it offshore. The 'doomsday auction', as campaigners have called it, includes 47 blocks in the Amazon basin, in a sensitive area near the mouth of the river that fossil fuel companies consider a promising new oil frontier. Brazil has argued that developing countries should be allowed to exploit their fossil fuel reserves while developed nations, many of which have grown rich over centuries of exploiting their own resources, must take the lead in closing down operations. Ana Toni, the chief executive of Cop30, said: 'Transitioning away is a responsibility of everyone, not only producing countries, consumer countries – many countries in the north don't produce fossil fuel, but they consume fossil fuel. We've gone to this era of finger pointing on countries. We need to find solutions for producer countries that depend financially on that income.' One of the many tasks at which Bonn failed was to broker an agreement on who should host the Cop31 summit. Australia and Turkey are vying for the presidency of next year's meeting. Neither is willing to concede to the other, and the obscure process for choosing future presidencies tends to rely on consensus candidates emerging and a system of gentlemen's agreements, rather than a real competition or vote. Australia's newly re-elected government wants to showcase its commitment to climate action, despite being one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, as climate policy was one of its key battlegrounds in the recent elections. Turkey has long been unhappy with its status at the talks – in 1992, when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, Turkey was lumped in with developed countries, which have clear obligations to cut emissions and provide climate finance to the poor world, but has since argued it should have been aligned with the developing world. There are hints that Turkey could be persuaded to drop its bid if its status were reconsidered. But opening up the parent treaty to the Paris agreement would be legally difficult and stir up much wider issues: for if Turkey's status has changed since 1992, what of countries such as China, now the world's second-biggest economy with a GDP per capita comparable to some EU member states, and wealthy Gulf petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates?
ABC News
a day ago
- Business
- ABC News
Cattle industry ditches pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2030
Less than a decade after the red meat industry promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2030, it has abandoned the goal claiming it is not possible. A review conducted by the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) found it was not achievable to meet the ambitious 2030 net-zero target announced by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) in 2017 and adopted in 2019. Independent chair, Red Meat Advisory Council, John McKillop, said it was partly due to a better understanding of emissions reduction and a realisation they were not on track to reach the target. "We just, quite frankly, realised we're not going to get to carbon neutral by 2030," he said. Livestock contributes about 11 per cent of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the national greenhouse gas inventory. Mr McKillop said dropping the target would not impact any research and development programs. "We'll still be trying to reduce our emissions as much as we can, but the focus will now be on emissions intensity rather than the absolute number of tonnes of carbon emitted," he said. The Red Meat Advisory Council will request Meat and Livestock Australia complete modelling on emissions intensity, which it estimates will take a year before any new five- and 10-year targets are set for the industry. Pressed on whether this reversal would receive any backlash from consumers or key export markets, Mr McKillop was resolute. "No, I don't think so. I think you could look at it and say, 'Well, that was a really ambitious target. You got 78 per cent of the way there, five years out from it,'" he said. In a statement, a spokesperson for Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said the industry would be required to continue to reduce emissions. "The Albanese Labor government has supported the red meat industry in its ambitious goal to be carbon neutral by 2030," they said. "While the decision by industry to step away from this aspiration is disappointing, this does not change the need for Australian agriculture to continue to contribute to the economy-wide 2035 targets and the net-zero by 2050 goal, which will require all sectors across agriculture to make meaningful emissions reductions." Romy Carey, CEO of the NT Cattlemen's Association, told the NT Country Hour the change should not be viewed as a backward step. "The original CN30 plan wasn't grounded in a workable industry-wide plan," she said. "I don't think it's a step backwards but a bit of a strategic realignment." However, Farmers for Climate Action CEO Natalie Collard said any change to emissions methodology must have integrity and be widely accepted. "We understand RMAC dropping the carbon-neutral by 2030 target because most farmers won't achieve net-zero emissions by then," she said. "However, we're a science-based organisation, so we can't pretend 'climate neutral' and 'GWP*' [global warming potential] is a credible science." "We have never had to greenwash. Why would we start now? "This methodology has never been modelled … and it would also mean that a sheep would have higher emissions intensity than a cow, simply because of the lower weight. It just doesn't make sense." Caitlin Webb from VC Reid Livestock said the news was a relief for farmers, and the initial target might not have been practical. "I think it's good; it takes a lot of stress off the farmers," she said.
Globe and Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Can Emission Reduction Initiatives Drive Growth for NRG Stock?
NRG Energy 's NRG strategic focus on reducing emissions significantly strengthens its long-term investment outlook. By aligning its operations with global decarbonization efforts and tightening environmental regulations, the company is well-positioned to capitalize on policy incentives, improve stakeholder confidence and reduce regulatory risks. Its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, supported by interim 2030 targets, reflects a well-defined and credible sustainability roadmap. NRG Energy's planned shift toward a lower-carbon business model is not only environmentally responsible but financially advantageous. The company's investments in clean technologies, like battery storage, carbon capture and demand-side energy management, are enhancing operational efficiency, improving profit margins and increasing grid reliability. As carbon pricing becomes more common, NRG Energy's cleaner portfolio offers a significant cost advantage by avoiding the financial penalties imposed on high-emission operators. Receding emissions levels strengthen NRG's brand equity and deepen customer loyalty in a market increasingly driven by sustainability preferences. With a vast retail electricity platform serving millions of residential and commercial clients, NRG Energy is well-positioned to deliver cleaner, more personalized energy solutions. The company's green product offerings and energy efficiency services also unlock new cross-selling opportunities and recurring revenue streams. In summary, NRG Energy's decarbonization efforts place it in a favorable position amid the clean energy transition. By proactively pursuing net-zero goals, the company is mitigating long-term risks while tapping into the expanding opportunities of a low-carbon economy. How Utilities Are Reducing Emission Levels? Utilities across the United States are reducing emissions by transitioning to cleaner energy sources, modernizing infrastructure and investing in emerging technologies. Companies are implementing carbon capture systems to meet climate goals. Duke Energy Corporation DUK is targeting to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To achieve its target, Duke Energy will shut all coal units and invest in clean energy assets. Xcel Energy XEL is undertaking initiatives to produce and deliver clean energy to customers. The company aims to serve all customers with 100% zero-carbon emissions by 2050. Xcel will invest in emerging new technologies and increase the efficiency of existing units. NRG Stock Returns Better Than the Industry Return on equity ('ROE') is an essential financial indicator that evaluates a company's efficiency in generating profits from the equity invested by its shareholders. It demonstrates how well management is utilizing the capital provided to increase earnings and deliver value. The current ROE of the company indicates that it is using shareholders' funds more efficiently than peers. NRG's Earnings Estimates Moving North The Zacks Consensus Estimate for NRG's 2025 and 2026 earnings per share indicates an increase of 2.78% and 9.12%, respectively, in the past 60 days. NRG's Price Performance NRG's shares have outperformed the Zacks Utility- Electric Power industry in the past six months. NRG's Zacks Rank NRG currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Research Chief Names "Single Best Pick to Double" From thousands of stocks, 5 Zacks experts each have chosen their favorite to skyrocket +100% or more in months to come. From those 5, Director of Research Sheraz Mian hand-picks one to have the most explosive upside of all. This company targets millennial and Gen Z audiences, generating nearly $1 billion in revenue last quarter alone. A recent pullback makes now an ideal time to jump aboard. Of course, all our elite picks aren't winners but this one could far surpass earlier Zacks' Stocks Set to Double like Nano-X Imaging which shot up +129.6% in little more than 9 months. Free: See Our Top Stock And 4 Runners Up Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Xcel Energy Inc. (XEL): Free Stock Analysis Report NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG): Free Stock Analysis Report Duke Energy Corporation (DUK): Free Stock Analysis Report
