England’s hopes of qualifying for Euro 2008 will rest on how they cope with an artificial pitch, after it was announced last night that their penultimate qualification match against Russia will be played on synthetic grass. In a move that will pose Steve McClaren a novel problem in his preparation, the Russian Football Union said the October 17 tie would take place on Fifa- and Uefa-approved FieldTurf at Moscow’s Luzhniki Stadium. “It is 99.9% certain it will be held on a synthetic pitch,” said its spokesman. “Russian coach Guus Hiddink wanted the match played on natural grass but I don’t think it would be possible to lay out the turf in time for the game.”

The Football Association had been anticipating such news and reacted by sending a four-man delegation to assess the surface this week. England will play home games against Israel, Russia and Estonia before travelling to Moscow. They are currently three points adrift of Croatia and Israel, who occupy the qualification positions for next summer’s tournament in Austria and Switzerland, and they may go to Russia needing a win.

One former FA executive admitted the governing body would approach the match with “understandable apprehension” given the “bad memories they have” of the artificial pitches used by clubs such as Luton Town, Queens Park Rangers and Preston North End in the 1980s. Balls would bounce comically high, severe injuries were common and sliding tackles were a health hazard, but the technology has now improved considerably. England are expected to practise beforehand on similar surfaces, such as that at Manchester United’s Carrington training ground.

“We understand we will be playing on an artificial pitch. Steve McClaren is aware of it and we will prepare accordingly,” an FA spokesman said. “We had a small party go out there earlier this week to look at the pitch and will certainly take up our right to train on it before the game.

“The FA will be looking at similar artificial surfaces in this country to train on before we fly out there. We’re due to be based at Manchester United’s training ground before leaving for Russia and they have an artificial surface there so we’ll more than likely use that.”

NEW YORK: The courts do not have the authority or the expertise to decide injury lawsuits concerning global warming, a judge in San Francisco ruled in dismissing a suit brought by the State of California against six auto companies.

The decision Monday, by Judge Martin Jenkins, was welcome news for automakers, who had suffered a defeat last week in federal court in Vermont.

In the decision last week, Judge William Sessions III endorsed Vermont regulations meant to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by cars and light trucks. More than a dozen states have similar rules, and a lawsuit challenging such regulations in California is pending.

In the case decided Monday, California claimed that the six car companies produced vehicles that accounted for more than 20 percent of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent of those emitted in California.

The suit claimed that the emissions were a public nuisance and sought billions of dollars in damages.

Jenkins wrote that resolving the questions presented in the suit was not a proper task for the courts.

“The adjudication of plaintiffs claim would require the court to balance the competing interests of reducing global warming emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development,” Jenkins wrote.

The two decisions are not necessarily at odds. They collectively suggest that states may address climate change through their legislatures and executive branches, but not through the courts.

Given national and international debate on the issues, Jenkins wrote, “the court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government.”

Indeed, he continued, a decision from the court on awarding damages for increasing global warming could potentially undermine the choices of the political branches. SEC petitioned on climate

State officials, pension funds and environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday to force companies to disclose more to investors about how climate change might hurt the bottom line, Bloomberg News reported from Washington.

The state treasurer of California, Bill Lockyer; the state attorney general of New York, Andrew Cuomo; and the chief financial officer of Florida, Alex Sink, were part of the group that filed the request with the SEC, according to Environmental Defense and to Ceres, a coalition of investment funds and environmental groups that is based in Boston.

NEW YORK: On a sun-splashed day this month, Harald Grant, a Sothebys real estate agent, showed his top listing to a hedge fund client.

The client himself was not touring the jaw-dropping, 11-acre estate, with its two swimming pools, 21 bedrooms and sweeping view of Lake Agawam in Southampton, an exclusive Long Island village outside New York City. Instead, he had sent a representative - a fast-talking young woman with jewels on her fingers and a cellphone pressed to her ear.

“So, asking is 48 million,” she said. “Magnificent.”

But unsold. There have been several low-ball offers for the estate, dubbed Old Trees, over the past year, mostly from hedge fund executives and other Wall Street barons, Grant said.

A few years ago, as markets boomed and the new hedge fund rich banked paydays that surpassed $1 billion, Old Trees, with its Gatsbyesque allure, would have been snapped up by a brash executive looking to crash the old money gates of Southampton.

But a cautiousness has begun to creep in, brought on by the recent turmoil in the markets, the uproar over the conspicuousness of the 60th birthday party for the equity buyout chief Stephen Schwarzman and the cries from Capitol Hill to increase taxes on hedge funds and private equity billionaires.

In August, hedge funds showed a negative return of 2.5 percent, according to the HRFX index of leading funds compiled by Hedge Fund research. On the surface it does not seem like a lot, given the billions of dollars that hedge funds have accumulated.

Yet, it was the largest monthly reversal since a 3.8 percent decline in April 2000. Taken together with larger percentage downturns experienced by several prominent funds, the number represents a stark, albeit early, reminder that the fast and easy returns of recent years are on the wane.

“People just dont feel euphoric and they dont want to be high profile any more,” said Dolly Lenz, a high-end real estate broker at Prudential Elliman, who first saw this growing reserve from her hedge fund clients in July. “They are no longer seeing new highs every month. They may have the same net worth, but its all about euphoria and confidence. These are trade up purchases, no one really needs them.”

It is not just Old Trees. Lenz cited a growing number of luxury properties that cannot find a buyer, most prominently a $70 million penthouse at the Pierre Hotel.

There has been no outright moratorium on big ticket real estate buys: Sanford Weill, the former chief executive of Citigroup was recently reported to have paid $42 million for an apartment at 15 Central Park West.

All the same, industry participants describe an emerging psychological shift, albeit a subtle one, given this early stage of softness in the markets and the overall economy. They say that the shift will become more pronounced if funds continue to show negative returns for the year, which will keep executives from reaping the 20 percent share of the profits that they get when their funds show a positive return. What is more, having finished down one year, it becomes more difficult to recapture that higher ground, especially in a choppy market environment.

So the pressure begins to build, until, “you stop spending,” said Andy Kessler, a former hedge fund manager. Why? Fear, mostly.

“You worry about redemptions,” Kessler said, “you worry about margin calls, and you worry about working for free. Down 7 percent may be no big deal, but when your investors say get me out, you have to sell everything.”

After years of huge returns, sudden losses can come as a shock causing anxiety and distress. Aware of the psychological impact, several funds have retained psychologists to counsel stressed out managers.

“It has been a very challenging period for these people,” said Jonathan Katz, a psychologist who works with large hedge funds. “I have seen people shaken, their confidence eroded. They are upset and depressed.”

Such anxieties become all the more acute when taken with the boundless spending habits developed at the height of the hedge fund bubble.

The distress can result in what some call a social contagion, as hedge fund executives let their market woes affect their personal lives. Soaring golf scores, loss of appetite and a propensity to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat are some of the symptoms cited by investors.

To be sure, many investors are cold blooded enough not to let the inevitable bout of failure derail them. But others find it hard to keep their egos insulated from the losses they may be suffering.