Europe’s Automakers Grapple With New Emissions Standards, While Gas Guzzlers In Cali Can Rest Easy
Friday, January 4th, 2008
While EPA honcho Stephen L. Johnson spent last week thwarting the attempts of California and 16 other states to adopt measures limiting automobile emissions, the European Union is taking unprecedented steps of its own to limit the carbon footprint of cars sold within its countries’ borders.
According to an article published in last week’s Economist (“Collision Course”; Dec. 22, 2007), the EU is about to adopt “the world’s strictest CO2-emission standards”. By 2012, new cars sold in the EU must meet an emissions threshold of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometer; at present, European-made cars average about 160 g/km. The European Commission will also recommend the imposition of a fine of $137 per car per gram over the 130g/km limit. While this standard will undoubtably present a problem for all of Europe’s car manufacturers, the most vociferous protests are emanating from German luxury car giants BMW and Mercedes-Benz. Vehicles produced by these two companies average in the range of 184 g/km and 188 g/km respectively, about $7,000 in fines per car above the proposed threshold. In contrast, French and Italian automakers Citroen, Renault and Fiat — all whose fleets are “heavily biased towards fuel-efficient small cars” — average 142-147 g/km per car.
However, the ultimate form that this legislation will take is not yet settled. German auto lobbyists have pushed for a special “weight dispensation” that will provide relative emissions allowances for heavier cars; much to the dismay of environmental activists, the European Commission has agreed in principle. Ultimately, though, by focusing this emissions cap on cars sold in Europe rather than on cars manufactured, this mandate may do little to curb global greenhouse gases, as the main markets for both BMW and Mercedes lie abroad — mainly in the US, Russia and China, all countries whose clean-air standards still leave much to be desired.
Meanwhile, the attempts of California and other states to adopt their own clean-air initiatives are being stonewalled. Despite the recent deservedly-lauded legislation set to increase fuel efficiency in US-manufactured vehicles by as much as 40% by 2020, the California ruling unfortunately demonstrates the current administration’s continued reticence to recognize the global environmental crisis. It’s probably no coincidence that Johnson rendered his decision only after the latest round of Vice-President Cheney’s confabs with auto lobbyists, where Cheney purportedly promised to kill the California bill in exchange for industry support on the federal bill. Though EU officials seem willing to take an albeit limited lead on emissions reduction, the Bush administration continues to send mixed signals to the global community, slapping itself on the back with one hand for passing legislation it never wanted in the first place, while surreptitiously removing the bill’s teeth with the other.
Posted in Global Warming, Legislation, Pollution | Permalink
Environmentalism + Biotechnology = Strange Bedfellows
Friday, December 21st, 2007
According to most recent accounts in the press, ethanol is going through a PR crisis. These days the alternative fuel is hardly seen as the clean solution to our fuel problems, as originally touted. It’s apparently not as environmentally friendly as initial reports indicated, and it’s grossly inefficient. The energy-intensive methods needed to extract ethanol from targeted crops such as corn, sugar, soybean and switchgrass produce greenhouse gas emissions at only slightly lower rates than the direct consumption of traditional fossil fuels; in addition, the allocation of agricultural resources to the production of ethanol-suitable crops has raised a plethora of concerns, ranging from potential food shortage to inefficient land use to excessive fertilizer run-off.
Biotech could change that. According to an article published in a recent issue of the New York Times science supplement, genetic engineers at various public and private institutions are racing to create strains of ethanol-friendly trees. “Treethanol” is seen by many as a significantly more efficient — and controversial — version of ethanol. Given their relatively high amounts of cellulose — the key component for ethanol production — trees seem like a natural resource toward this end. But the lignins that give wood its structure and composition prevent scientists from efficiently tapping this high cellulosity. The obvious solution, according to industry scientists, is to bioengineer trees with lower amounts of lignins. While the genetic pathways by which this could be accomplished are well understood and easily modified, the criticism aimed at these efforts is no less acute than that leveled at other forms of ethanol; the range of concerns includes familiar issues such as the vast amounts of land that will need to be allocated to grow transgenic trees, as well as newer issues such as the admixture of modifed genes with those from wild strains in natural populations and the possibility of creating entire forests of structurally unstable trees. While these concerns are very real, as cases of gene mixing between bioengineered and natural crops abound, research is currently thriving; the Energy Department recently granted $1.4 million over three years to a team of Purdue researchers experimenting with lignin reduction.
The Economist published a similar article back in March. Click here to read.
Posted in Biofuel, Energy Efficiency, Global Warming | Permalink
Coming Soon — Clean Coal?
Wednesday, December 19th, 2007
Coal gets a bad rap, and deservedly so. Few sources of energy contribute more to global warming and atmospheric pollution. Its cheap cost and availability prompt its near-global ubiquity; coal is still responsible for half of U.S. energy production and one-third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Yet a new high-tech power plant scheduled to open in Illinois in 2012 could change the way coal is perceived, if it ever gets built. That’s a big “if”.
The new plant, known as FutureGen, will utilize a technology known as carbon sequestration, or carbon capture and storage (CCS). This method removes carbon dioxide and other impurities by turning coal into a pure gas, which is then burned to power turbines to produce electricity; the impurities are then pumped deep underground, where they remain trapped in rock and saline aquifers, with supposedly little environmental impact.
While this technology isn’t exactly new, it has yet to be applied on a large-enough scale to significantly affect carbon emissions, or to test its backers’ claims of minimal impact. FutureGen is expected to produce 275 MW of energy. The DOE calls the project “the world’s first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant.” The DOE’s partner in this initiative, a public-private partnership known as the FutureGen Alliance, hopes to break ground by 2009, but delays and mounting costs could apparently hamper the $1.5 billion project. Click here to read a more skeptical account of the potential consequences of CCS.
Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Permalink
Global Warming Bill Takes First Steps
Thursday, December 6th, 2007
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee approved legislation that would set solid goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country by a substantive margin (70% by 2050!). According to the AP, the bill would:
*Require carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 70 percent by 2050.
*Cover electric power, manufacturing and transportation, which accounts for 80 percent of U.S. economy-related greenhouse gas emissions.
*Allow trading of emission allowances, a “cap-and-trade” system. Companies unable to meet their emission cap could buy allowances from other companies that have exceeded their required cuts.
Joining the Democrats and Independents on the committee in support of the bill was Republican Senator John Warner (Va.) who countered arguments by some of his colleagues, saying “If we don’t act, China and India will simply hide behind America’s skirts of inaction and take no steps of their own.” Absent from the bill are any provisions to promote nuclear power as a “clean” energy solution, which will hearten those who question the efficacy of an energy source whose waste problems has not been solved.
Those wanting to see reductions of 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 might be disappointed (the bill works out to about a 62% reduction from 1990 levels), but this is a major step forward for serious climate action. The bill has a long way to go before becoming law and will not be brought before the full Senate until next year, where it promises to be subjected to a highly contentious battle waged by climate change skeptics, business and energy associations (not to mention the specter of a possible veto), but at least it’s getting on the agenda. Now we’ll see if the House steps up with its own version early next year.
Posted in Global Warming, Legislation | Permalink
Trees Making a Comeback
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007
The UN reported that a BILLION trees were planted last year around the world, with Mexico and Ethiopia at the top of the list. People are getting the idea that economy and the environment is not a choice, but a team. Cutting trees gives versatile building materials and fuel, but trees prevent costly erosion damage and soil loss, and help mitigate local droughts. They also provide natural shelter from the heat in summer and cold winds in winter, as well as absorbing carbon dioxide to to their share to mitigate climate destabilization.
Here in NYC, the New York Restoration Project (nyrp.org), in partnership with PlaNYC, is on a mission to plant a million trees in the city. There are lots of ways to get involved including recommending places for trees (like on your street!), volunteering and more. Visit their site at milliontreesnyc.org.
Photo by experiencingkenya on Flickr.
Posted in Global Warming, New York City, Sustainability | Permalink
Yet Another Climate Destabilization Warning From UN and World-leading Scientists
Monday, November 19th, 2007
Using words like “clear”, “urgency”, and “explicit”, world leaders and scientists involved with the latest UN report once again urged politicians *cough* US-and-China *cough* to dramatically shift their stance on action to prevent the kind of climate destabilization that would forebode dramatic geopolitical upheaval.
The IPCC even wrote that the atomic bomb of global warming–the melting of the Greenland ice sheet–could happen in hundreds of years instead of thousands. Significant and robust warming trends have been increasing more than previously predicted.
The best scientists in the world, who have no trouble convincing us on their latest breakthroughs in electronics or chemistry, have hit political roadblock after roadblock on this one. What gives? Email your political representative now.
Posted in Global Warming, Politics | Permalink
Anonymous ‘Nerd’ Posits Compelling Game Theory Argument for Climate Change Action on YouTube
Friday, November 16th, 2007
Thoughtful and highly geeky, this little video - curiously titled “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” - has gotten over 2 million hits on YouTube. The unnamed speaker attempts to create a justification for wide-scale emissions reduction based on a game theory argument that does not depend on a scientifically certain answer to the question: “is climate change happening?”
Posted in Global Warming, Politics | Permalink
Newt, we never knew ya. . . .
Friday, November 16th, 2007
Regardless of one’s affiliations, most of us have certain assumptions about which side of the political spectrum carries the stronger green sympathies.
But - as though paralleling its weird effects on the weather - climate change is now playing havoc with America’s conventional landscape of ‘issue-based’ politics. While some influential voices on the right continue to persist in their outspoken denial, it is becoming increasingly clear that the crisis is no longer narrowly viewed as a ‘liberal’ or even ‘environmental’ concern, in the conventional sense of the terms. Examples of this shift abound. Consider, for example, how for more than a few years a national security argument for action on emissions reduction has steadily gained greater amplitude and persuasive power in the mainstream; or how a growing number of fiscal conservative thinkers are coming to support the idea of a carbon tax; or the recent explosion of Evangelical Christian climate activism, and how it has established that influential group as a force for positive change.
But just this week a most unexpected bedfellow appears to have jumped into the eclectic sack that is the contemporary climate change movement. Newt Gingrich, architect of the conservative Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the mid-90s, has released a book about combating global warming that appears to rhyme, in many important respects (though certainly not all - read: nuclear), with arguments coming that are held within some corners of the environmental movement. I’d say that signals that a pretty obvious paradigm shift has occurred.
Out this week, with a forward by renowned biologist and writer E.O. Wilson A Contract With The Earth (2007, Johns Hopkins UP), is sure to be an interesting and highly influential read.
Here’s a recent NYT review .
Posted in Global Warming, Politics | Permalink
Trees
Tuesday, November 13th, 2007Dr. Octagon aka Kool Keith drops science on global warming.
Posted in Global Warming | Permalink
Don’t Call It a Comeback…
Friday, November 9th, 2007
Think coal is an energy source of the past, a symbol of stagnant industrialism on its way out? Think again…
According to a report issued by the International Energy Agency, the future demand for energy derived from coal and fossil fuels will be even greater than that projected by last year’s World Energy Outlook report. Despite the recent increased emphasis on renewable energy around the globe, the proliferation of coal-burning power plants in developing countries such as China and India will drive the demand for coal up by “73 percent between 2005 and 2030.” What’s more, these new plants are unlikely to utilize cleaner coal-burning technology such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). According to a recent article published by the Agence France-Presse (AFP), “The 663-page report was packed with alarming statistics based on a “reference scenario” in which energy consumption continues on current trends without government measures to reduce demand and greenhouse gas emissions. Under this model, energy demand increases by more than 50 percent up to 2030, with 84 percent of the new demand supplied from fossil fuels.” A more optimistic “alternative” model, which takes potential government measures into account, still projects a 25% increase in CO2 emissions by 2030.
Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Permalink
