Finally going "from gas-friendly to gas-free" - just in time for $4/gallon gas

General Motors has, for awhile now, been touting a great motto - "From gas-friendly to gas-free". Ever since I saw it I thought it was just a motto - nothing the company actually followed through on. But now, GM is closing four plants that produce SUVs and are also thinking about selling off the Hummer brand entirely. They're nowhere close to gas-free, but they might be getting closer to the gas-friendly stage. Think it has anything to do with the average price of gas now at $4 a gallon?

I guess they think that the gas-free stage will be met in 2010, when they release the Chevy Volt. As of now, they conceive the car going 40 miles on one charge, which isn't too bad. But therein lies the problem with electric cars - you shift the emissions from gas to coal power plants. Maybe you're lucky an live in another state other than Virginia, where Dominion Power doesn't seem to like or believe in renewable energy. But for most of the country, an electric car would be powered by coal. Yes it's great that you don't use gas, but for the average person, you would still burn coal.

Related to this is a great editorial cartoon in yesterday's Washington Post. Tom Toles hits it right on the head with his drawing below. Pay special attention to the bottom right hand corner.

For those who don't want to click through, it says SUV - Suddenly Unwanted Vehicle. It is for many Americans, and apparently now GM. I must say it would make me extremely happy if they got rid of HUMMERs - Huge, Unnecessary, Mega Monstrosities, Eliminating Resources.

Happy? Earth Day!

It's Earth Day! Do anything exciting?

There's a ton of press leading up to today, all really interesting. The Washington Post looks at the death of Earth Day today and also had a good look at Mountain Top Removal on Sunday. They also launched a new "Green Section" online.

MSN has a special section and there was a ton of press coverage of Bush's climate change "initiative", if you can call it that. There's talk of fuel economy guidelines being released to meet the 35mpg standards in the next decade, and more and more.

So, suddenly everyone cares - or it looks like they care. My question is does it matter? Is it too late? There seem to be lots of magic solutions to climate change, but nobody mentions that the use of ethanol could lead to higher food prices (which, by the way, have been increasing and are now called a "Silent Tsunami").

Also, how do you or did you celebrate Earth Day? I suggest planting a tree - maybe Apple.

The Carbon Tax Debate...Continued

From ES&T
What would happen if policy makers in the U.S. suddenly approved a tax on CO2? Would electric utilities instantaneously switch to more efficient power plants with lower CO2 emissions? Would consumers immediately become more careful of their electricity use?

According to the article in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T), the answer is "YES".

A tax on CO2 emissions as low as $35 per metric ton (t) would lead to a 10% reduction in CO2 from facilities located in the Northeast and Midwest, whereas the same price would result in reductions one-third as large in Texas.

The study indicated that a carbon tax would indeed lower consumer demand for electricity, implying that consumers would begin to invest in more energy efficient appliances and reduce energy use. Other studies suggested that a carbon tax would effectively lead energy companies to invest in low-carbon technologies.

A couple blogs ago, we were debating the idea of a gas tax vs. a carbon tax vs. a cap and trade system. You may recall that the political feasibility of a carbon tax was questioned. Co-author of this study, Granger Morgan, agrees that the introduction of carbon tax is not likely. "I don't think anybody would actually instantaneously switch on a high carbon price. It will probably be phased in or done through a cap-and-trade system, and that is how it should be," he asserts.

Recall that Sharlissa recommended this article describing the different implications of a carbon tax and cap and trade system. The author advocates a cap and trade system but warns about the danger of creating a secondary carbon market in which carbon traders have a stake in not completely eliminating carbon emissions.

Do you agree that America's first step to addressing climate change should be a cap and trade system? Under a cap and trade system, do you think a secondary carbon market could be avoided, or do you think the US would fall prey to the same problems seen in Europe?

Why we need an increase in the Gas Tax

Two words - Gas Tax - are probably the worst words that a politician could ever utter, especially now. It would probably mark the beginning of the end for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain. But why are we so averse to a Gas Tax?

A recent proposal in Virginia was just defeated. It "would have raised the state's gas tax of 17.5 cents a gallon, last raised in 1986, by a penny a year for the next five years. The Senate approved the plan, which would have raised $260 million annually when fully phased in."

Another reason that the gas tax was voted against was because the "federal government could be getting ready to raise the federal gas tax". I highly doubt that the feds are going to raise the gas tax as most Americans don't like the idea of paying even more for gas (however, considering that Congress' approval ratings are at 22%, they might as well take a shot - it can't get too much lower than that). Plus, the gov't massively subsidizes oil and that isn't going to stop until we actually run out of oil.

I like to look across the ocean at England, actually all of Europe for example. They have tiny cars, in large part because gas is so expensive there. It really is impossible to drive an SUV unless you have lots of money. I for one think a higher gas tax would be great. Granted, I don't have a lot of money, but this proposal would've raised gas by a penny per year. I can afford that. Plus, maybe it'll push more people to walk to work, or bike, or take mass transit.

When is America going to realize that we need to curb our dependence on oil? Or, do we already know it and just not realize the sacrifices we need to make? Do we have to make gas so expensive that we're forced to curb the dependence?

Climate Emergency?

We have a climate emergency, according to a new book that was published online this week called "Climate Code Red: The case for a sustainability emergency." It can be found at http://www.climatecodered.net/

It's about 100 pages, and the summary and key points are great. There are two things that stick with me.

- "There is already enough carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere to initiate ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland and to ensure that sea levels will rise metres in coming decades."

Why do people still not believe this? For some reason, there are some people that believe that this either isn't happening, or that it's "not that big a deal." I think this may now be cited in just about every climate change report. If you still don't think reducing carbon emissions is an important issue, check out this video.

- "Our conventional mode of politics is short-term, adversarial and incremental, fearful of deep, quick change and simply incapable of managing the transition at the necessary speed. The climate crisis will not respond to incremental modification of the business-as-usual model."

Basically, we have to do something NOW - we really can't afford to wait any longer, hence the "emergency." I agree, but can we really accomplish anything in the immediate future? It seems that in the US we're stuck with the status quo until January 20, 2009. However, even after that who knows what the new President's energy and environmental policies will be and whether Congress will go along with it.

Are we really stuck until next January? I hope not, but I have a bad feeling...

It's Official: We have ONE Earth and ONE big problem

"...the world does not face separate crises - the "environmental crisis", "development crisis", and "energy crisis" are all one"

This statement was quoted in Thursday's press release for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)'s latest Global Environment Outlook, or GEO4.

As you may know, OT has been researching the latest, most respected international reports to get an idea of what our future holds - what type of world we are set to inherit from our parents. The GEO4 report is the most comprehensive study available, and it does an excellent job of highlighting our biggest global challenges and showing how challenges in each sector are related.

While we (humanity) have successfully addressed many global issues such as ozone layer depletion, protection of many natural areas, and regional health improvements, many greater challenges threaten to undo to the progress we have achieved. The study reveals that current trends in most major areas (climate change, consumption levels, food production, water demand, biodiversity, etc.) are highly unfavorable. If current trends continue, we will likely face many large-scale, interrelated disasters.

As the report emphasizes, major problems are highly interrelated so it's important to focus on holistic solutions that address the bigger problem. For example, it is short-sighted to try to eradicate poverty (improve economic growth) through the continued use of fossil-powered energy. Gasoline cars and coal-fired power plants would greatly improve the standard of living for many people in the world - for a short period of time. However, the compounded impacts of increased pollution, rising fossil energy prices and climate change would likely counteract the previous efforts to combat poverty. In fact, climate change (caused by increase in use of fossil fuels) is projected to lead to water shortages, land changes, floods, and other consequences that will be disastrous for the world's poorest people because they lack the capital to adapt to these changes. (Recall the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the poor populations along the Gulf Coast and the tsunami's impact on the poor populations around Indonesia.)

Instead, true poverty eradication will come from holistic solutions that emphasize building economic growth on education, clean energies, high efficiency, environmental protection, and emergency preparedness. In fact, global shifts towards these holistic solutions are necessary, not just for poverty eradication, but for prevention of major disasters in the upcoming century. Humanity has faced many great disasters such as major world wars, plagues, food shortages, and the fall of many civilizations. But these events have primarily led to regional disasters. With our growing population and global interdependence, we are now more vulnerable than ever to global disasters - wars involving WMDs, global epidemics, global food shortages, and the fall of our global civilization.

Luckily, we have global communications and improved global diplomacy that will help us utilize and develop the many tools we need to address the challenges we face. But everyone must immediately focus on holistic, sustainable solutions in our pursuits of economic growth and well-being. As stated in the GEO4 report,
"while governments are expected to take the lead, other stakeholders are just as important to ensure success in achieving sustainable development. The need couldn't be more urgent and the time couldn't be more opportune, with our enhanced understanding of the challenges we face, to act now to safeguard our own survival and that of future generations"

How can you personally take real steps towards addressing these challenges? How can our government and social institutions take real steps toward addressing these challenges?

Good News, Bad News on Climate Change Policy in the U.S.

In a story in the Washington Post, President Bush's top science advisor, John Marburger III, admits that human activity is producing too much carbon dioxide and that it could induce disasters even before the Earth is warmed by two more degrees C.

From the article:
The IPCC outlined a range of environmental impacts that could transpire if temperatures rise 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above 1980 levels. These include placing between 20 and 30 percent of all species "at increasing risk of extinction" damaging most coral reefs; and
"increased morbidity and mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts."

Yet Margburger and the Bush administration refuse to join other leaders of the world community in their commitment to limit warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. What is his excuse? It "is going to be a very difficult one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that affect people's lives."

He's right about the first part of his statement - it will be very difficult to achieve, but the second part of his statement is completely illogical. Global climate is simply the sum of all the regional climates, so global climate change is inherently defined by the collection of changes to regional climates.

Maybe what he was trying to say is that he isn't concerned about climate change because wealthier people (and wealthier countries like the U.S.) are expected to be less devastated by climate change. Many people agree that the poorest people of the world are going to suffer the most from climate change (though the wealthiest people of the world are largely responsible for climate change.)

So maybe the real reason the Bush administration is dodging commitment to prevent or even mitigate climate change is: "It is going to be very difficult to achieve, and we don't care about the global effects of climate change - only the effects it will have on the U.S; and we'll just deal with those when they come." Well, even if you agree with this globally irresponsible, tyrannically isolationist view, do you really trust the Bush administration to be able to deal with it's own domestic climate disasters (think: hurricane Katrina)?


Finally, the title of this blog promised some good news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101802452.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Unlike the Bush administration, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment has acknowledged the importance of addressing climate change. On the grounds that coal-fired power plants emit carbon dioxide, they refused to offer a permit for the construction of a new power plant. In contrast to the Bush administration, the Kansas state government made a bold statement to the energy industry that the people want clean energy, not just cheap energy.

What we're up against

The US and Austrailian governments refuse to demand an actual cut in emissions levels despite warnings from the IPCC reports that say we must not only stop our current emissions levels - we should actually cut them back to avoid serious disaster within the next century. Major studies warn of mass extinctions, climate changes that will disrupt resource availability and natural habitats, and sea-level rises that will disrupt major communities. If we don't REDUCE our emissions, these disasters will affect us within the next 50 years, and they will only get worse after that. Yet these leaders refuse to make sacrifices now to minimize the disasters that our children and grandchildren will have to face. Did the leaders not read the scientific reports, or do they just not believe them? Or do they just not care about their grandchildren? Maybe they think that the "economic growth" built on energy from fossil fuels will be enough to protect their progeny. Why don't they have faith in the economic potential of investing in alternative energies? Plenty of historical examples show that banning one product leads to innovation in alternatives. The only logical explanation (that I can think of) for the behavior of these leaders is that they have some good buds in the fossil fuel industry who haven't yet invested seriously in renewable, clean energy.