chickenlittle

Good resources for emission reductions

www.thegreenguide.com This guide has in-depth product reports (on light bulbs, diapers and so on), blogs and a comfy feeling; especially good on health and nutrition.

www.dannyseo.typepad.com Mr. Seo, an eco-friendly designer, blogs about ways to greenify your home, inside and out.

www.energystar.gov Good conversion data is available here. Also, while some may find their eyes glazing over at descriptions of Energy Star-rated appliances, it’s interesting to check out differences between what you have and what’s available now.

www.aceee.org The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy offers refreshingly straightforward information for both regular folks and wonks.

www.nrdc.org The National Resources Defense Council weighs in with good policy papers on almost every aspect of the environment — air, water, cities, waste, etc.

www.stopglobalwarming.org This site lets users join the Stop Global Warming Virtual March (in about as much time as it takes to read this sentence twice). It also has consumer tips. ANDREW POSTMAN

Wind Power

TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY

Turning wind power on its side

Mar 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Energy technology: Wind turbines that rotate about a vertical axis, rather than the usual horizontal one, could have a number of benefits

WIND turbines are springing up in all sorts of places around the world, from China to California, but most of them have the same basic design: the blades rotate about a horizontal axis, as in an old-fashioned windmill. Such turbines can generate electricity at a cost not much higher than non-renewable, fossil-fuel sources—provided the wind is blowing, that is. But if proponents of a rival design are to be believed, electricity can be generated from wind even more cheaply, using turbines that rotate about a vertical axis, like a playground roundabout.

TMA, a company based in Cheyenne, Wyoming, announced in November that its first vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT) would soon be ready for commercial production. The TMA system has two sets of vertical blades. The two inner blades, each shaped like a half-cylinder, catch the wind and rotate about a central axis, while the three outer blades, shaped like aircraft wings, are fixed. The interaction between the two sets of blades causes a drop in pressure in front of the rotating blades' leading edges, which further increases the rate of rotation. TMA claims that its system harvests 43-45% of the wind's available energy; conventional propeller-style turbines, in contrast, have efficiencies of 25-40%.

In winds of more than 80kph (50mph), furthermore, the blades and gearboxes of conventional turbines cannot cope with the strain, and they have to be shut down. TMA says its vertical-axis design can still work even at wind speeds as high as 110kph, however. The ability to harvest high-speed winds is particularly valuable, since each doubling of wind speed results in an eightfold increase in available energy. TMA also claims that its design is quieter and less visually obtrusive than conventional turbines.

A British consortium, Eurowind Developments, which includes VT Group, a shipbuilding and engineering company, and Mott Macdonald, a consultancy, believes VAWTs could be the best design for giant offshore turbines. Such a turbine, with a capacity of ten megawatts, would be able to power around 10,000 homes. Today's largest horizontal-axis turbines produce around five megawatts, and are proving difficult to scale up. Each blade has to be more than 60 metres long, and the bigger the blade, the greater the stress it experiences as it turns: the blade's own weight compresses it at the top of the cycle and stretches it at the bottom. As a result, blades must be made and transported in one piece, which is expensive. Reinforcing the blade to enable it to withstand these forces further increases cost and reduces efficiency.

The blades of a VAWT, in contrast, do not have to undergo this repeated stretching and compression. Nor does their cross-section vary from top to bottom, which makes them cheaper to manufacture than windmill blades, the shape of which must be painstakingly engineered. VAWT blades can also be made in pieces and joined together on site. So vertical-axis designs should enable wind turbines to be scaled up more easily, resulting in cheaper electricity, even for VAWT designs of similar efficiency to conventional turbines. “If we can build a ten megawatt turbine for only slightly more than other companies build five megawatt turbines, then the efficiency question goes out of the window,” says Steven Peace of Eurowind.

Neither TMA nor Eurowind has yet proved the technology in commercial deployments, however, and the mainstream wind industry remains sceptical about the benefits of VAWTs, in large part because the idea is not new. Simple VAWTs, with a couple of sails pushed around by the wind, have been around for centuries, and were being used in Persia thousands of years ago. In 1922 a Finnish engineer, S. J. Savonius, improved on this primitive design, and devised a turbine based on two half-cylinder blades, as TMA uses. In 1931 a Frenchman, Georges Darrieus, patented a wind turbine that operates on an entirely different principle with two thin, curved blades fixed to a central axis, in a design often compared to an egg-beater.

Turbines based on the Savonius design are already used for small-scale generation in remote locations. Even large-scale VAWTs have been tried before. In the early 1990s the British government funded a trial in Carmarthen Bay in Wales, which culminated in the construction of a 500 kilowatt, 35-metre turbine. But it failed after six months because of a manufacturing fault, and the trial was wound up shortly afterwards. The project's final report concluded that VAWTs had no applications on land, but they should be reconsidered “if offshore wind energy becomes more attractive”.

That day has now come, so it might be time to give the technology another look. Nigel Crowe, director of the British Wind Energy Association, says the use of horizontal-axis turbines has as much to do with historical factors as technological merit. “Why do we use horizontal axis turbines? Why do we use VHS, not Betamax?” he asks. “They are the ones that got accepted first, and got established in the marketplace. The industry now is going through some major changes. Maybe the goalposts have moved a bit and maybe it is the right time to look again.” With plans afoot to build wind farms off the coast of Britain and elsewhere, the fortunes of the VAWT may be about to take a turn for the better.

Britt Stephens 'state of the environment' e-mail

O.K. - from the Oceanographer in our midst:

Nice to see you're interested in this climate stuff too. The short

answer is yes, we're in a bit of a fix, but the $64 dollar question is

how bad is it actually going to be. My research relates somewhat to

this question, specifically in terms of how oceans and land ecosytems

are exchanging and will exchange carbon dioxide (CO2) with the

atmosphere. But I am more interested in trying to figure out ways to

mitigate climate change (or "manage the risk of potential climate

change" depending on whether you believe its definitely happening), for

example by exploring how oceans and land ecosystems might be managed to

take up more CO2.

I've written a few emails along these lines before, so with a bit of

cutting and pasting I think I can send you a huge information dump, then

you can let me know if anything didn't make sense and/or what else you'd

like to know more about. . . .

First, a few basics, then some finer points.

1) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have gone up from 280 parts per

million (ppm) to 380 ppm since the industrial revolution. No credible

scientist disputes that this is a direct result of fossil-fuel

combustion - the isotopic signatures (ratios of carbon with 14, 13, or

12 neutrons) of the new CO2 matches fossil fuels and in fact the

atmospheric increase is only 1/3 of the amount of CO2 that we have

emitted into the atmosphere during that time. Nevertheless, you will

occasionally hear folks from the oil lobby dispute even this fundamental

point. Based on ice core measurements, we know that this number has not

been higher than 280 for at least the past 500,000 years. It oscillated

between 200 ppm during ice ages ("glacial periods") and 280 ppm during

non ice ages ("interglacial periods") over this time, and

emissions/uptake projections in the absence of deliberate reductions

show it reaching 700 to 1000 ppm by the end of this century.

2) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs heat (infrared radiation) that would

otherwise escape to space. The world would be much colder and we likely

wouldn't be here if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere. Water vapor,

which varies around a few percent in concentration, is also responsible

for warming the Earth through this mechanism. The other major

atmospheric gases such as oxygen, nitrogen, and argon do not absorb in

the infra red. Other minor gases, such as methane and

chlorofluorocarbons do absorb infra red and are also relevant for

climate change, but increasing CO2 is the dominant concern.

3) Now, because CO2 absorbs heat and we are increasing it in the

atmosphere, it is going to get warmer. This is also indisputable. What

no one can say for sure, and what leaves room for strong convictions on

both sides of the argument, is whether it is only going to get a few

degrees Fahrenheit warmer, which might be somewhat manageable, or

whether it is going to get 20 F warmer which would have catastrophic

impacts all over the world. This is where supercomputer models come in

(actually you get the same answer on the back of an envelope but simple

calculations aren't defensible because they neglect potentially

important processes). The same models that can now predict the weather

very well for a couple days (and still show some skill out to 10 days or

so), can also be used to predict the climate. The difference between

weather and climate is a somewhat subtle concept - the models couldn't

tell you that there will be a high of 95 in New York on August 1 of this

year (the weather), but they can tell you what the average high

temperature in August in New York is (the climate). All sophisticated

climate models, of which there are probably 30 around the world, predict

that the globally averaged surface temperature will increase by 3 to 10

degrees F over the next 100 years.

4) These models account for myriad processes in the atmosphere and the

oceans and take months to run on the world's fastest computers, yet they

are still vastly crude compared to the real world they attempt to

simulate. Because of this, they have many uncertainties and may in fact

be missing important feedbacks in the climate system would make them

inaccurate. For example, clouds both trap heat and reflect sunlight so

whether it gets cloudier and specifically what type of clouds increase

(high or low) could either work to accelerate or decelerate warming.

There are a very few outspoken but credible scientists, who point out

the shortcomings of current models and argue that climate change

warnings are overstated. One important point: though the current models

are far from perfect, nobody has a computer model that predicts it is

not going to get significantly warmer. Also, it is just as likely that

processes the models have left out would make the predictions worse, not

better.

5) It has gotten warmer. Past temperature records are tricky to

interpret, but the best combination of thermometer data, perma-frost

bore holes, and tree-ring proxies indicate about a 1.5 F warming over

the past 100 years (you may have heard of a recent controversy over how

the graphical presentation of this data was exaggerating the sharpness

of this trend, but the overall numbers are still the same). This

relatively small temperature trend can not be assigned unequivocably to

human influence because it's possible the Earth is simply recovering

from the "little Ice Age" which cooled global temperatures and froze the

Thames in winter for much of the 1700's. However, the observed

temperature increase lines up very well with the computer model

projections of what the human influence on temperature should be to this

point.

6) Predicted and observed warmings are much greater at high latitudes.

Because of feedbacks between evaporation, clouds, radiation and

temperature, the tropics are basically already as warm as they can get.

On the other hand, high latitude regions which are much colder and also

reflect a lot of the sun's energy back to space from white snow and ice

that could convert to darker more absorbent land and ocean with warming,

have a much greater potential for warming. The same models which say

the global average temperature will increase 3-10 F predict that

temperatures over Alaska, Northern Canada, and Siberia will increase by

up to 20 F. This is a big number. In fact, many changes have already

occurred at high latitudes that may be warnings of things to come.

Glaciers are in retreat, permafrost is melting, and spring and fall come

earlier and later by several weeks. I recently read that adult polar

bears now weigh 30% less than they used to, because the amount of time

they can walk around on the ice picking off seals has been greatly reduced.

7) Abrupt climate change is a related concern you've probably heard

about. We know from ice cores that during glacial periods, the global

climate repeatedly warmed and cooled by as much as 15 F over a decade.

It is not clear whether such an abrupt change can happen during an

interglacial, but one scenario that's been discussed is that fresh water

entering the North Atlantic from melting of snow and ice could reduce

the density of the surface water enough to shut off or divert the Gulf

Stream, which is currently responsible for keeping Northern Europe much

warmer than it would otherwise be (e.g. everyone from Sweden would move

to New York and I would win the aforementioned wager). I'm not

particularly concerned about this possibility because I know a lot about

the limitations of the ocean models used in these projections, and even

if it did happen these regional effects would ultimately be washed out

by the larger global temperature trend. I did enjoy The Day After

Tomorrow despite the numerous physical impossibilities it was based on.

Then again, I'm a big Waterworld fan. Don't ever let a few facts get in

the way of a good story.

8) So, how bad could it be? I think sea-level is worth thinking about.

The climate models I've been referring to all predict around 50 cm to 1

m of sea-level rise over the next 100 years. This would make storm

surges and beach erosion worse in the U.S. but would otherwise probably

be manageable. For folks on island nations like the Maldives, whose

average elevation is only a meter or two above sea level, this probably

means everyone will have to move to India. However, these projections

are based almost entirely on thermal expansion of sea water. The ice

dynamics models just aren't good enough to make reliable projections

about the influence warming temperatures on polar ice and of potentially

melting ice on sea level. Yet, the possibilities are a bit scary. Ice

that is already floating, like the Rhode Island sized chunks of

Antarctica that have broken off the past few years, do not change

sea-level when they melt (just as melting ice cubes don't raise the

level of your drink). It's the grounded ice on Greenland and Antarctica

that is of most concern. The Florida Keys were formed as coral reefs

(underwater) during the last interglacial period 100,000 years ago, so

we know that sea-level has been much higher, and the only plausible

explanation for this is that then Greenland Ice Sheet was melted then.

Until very recently, people assumed that it would take 10,000 years to

melt Greenland and that we shouldn't be worried about it. However,

recent studies have revealed that it is currently melting at an alarming

rate and that it may have melted rapidly (over several hundred years) in

the past. I recently saw a talk by famous climatologist named Richard

Alley, where he showed a map of what the U.S. would look like if

Greenland melted (Florida is half gone) and if both Greenland and the

West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted (all of Florida is gone). While these

possibilities are currently considered unlikely in the next 100 years,

they are considered possible (see managing risk diatribe below).

9) Another interesting view on climate change comes from the perspective

of endangered species conservation. Ecologists have mapped out 20 or so

"hot spots" around the globe where biodiversity is high and a number of

threatened species are concentrated, and conservation efforts tend to

focus on these specific regions. The catch is that in the past, before

humans built superhighways, cities, and fenced ranches and farms,

animals would simply migrate with natural climate shifts (animals in

Africa have shifted their ranges by thousands of miles north and south

over thousands of years). Now, if climates shift, and all of those

species' ideal conditions shift 1000 miles north or south, they will be

unable move with them. Some climatologists have consequently suggested

that ecologists should worry more about global climate than local

conditions.

10) What should we do about it? First, I think we need to reject the

skeptics demand for "proof" that significant climate change is

inevitable before taking action, and start managing it like any other

risk. For example, we spend billions of dollars a year managing the

risk that a terrorist will attempt to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the

U.S. without any proof that such an event will actually occur. The

potential impacts on our nation's economy, infrastructure, and natural

resources from climate change are also very significant, but up to now

it has been treated as if because of the scientific uncertainty, doing

nothing about it was the best option. Instead I feel that at a minimum

we should be engaging the international community to establish

frameworks for negotiating emission reductions in the future if/when we

become more certain about the likelihood of negative impacts, and

actually participating in the initial attempts at such reductions (e.g.

ratifying the Kyoto Protocol). I'm not an economist, but I have seen

reports that the argument of dire effects on our economy under Kyoto

were flawed, and I think the argument that India and China should have

been included is a cop-out. India and China are certainly projected to

be major contributors to the CO2 problem, but we are by far the cause of

it up to now. Of the 6 billion tons of carbon as CO2 that humans emit

to the atmosphere each year through fossil-fuel burning, the U.S. is

responsible for almost 2 billion and of the total integrated emissions

up to now we are responsible for an even larger fraction. Also, we

should be investing heavily in alternative energy sources and improved

fuel efficiency technology through government provided incentives. Wind

energy is now financially competitive with coal, yet we are still

building massive coal-burning power plants. Also, if the mpg

regulations for SUVs were the same as cars, we would save more fuel than

is in the the hotly contested Artic National Wildlife Refuge. I'm not a

fan of hydroelectric because I like rafting and fishing, and I'm not a

fan of "nuculer" because I think it's irresponsible until we figure out

what to do with the waste. We should also be investing in research into

carbon sequestration, for example by removing CO2 from power plant smoke

stacks and piping it to the bottom of the ocean, or managing

agricultural systems and forests to store more carbon in soils (and I

have some somewhat far-fetched ideas about how to get more CO2 into the

Southern Ocean that I'm hoping to do some research on). But at the end

of the day, when you add up all our emissions and all the potential ways

to reduce them, there is still a huge mismatch and I'm afraid nothing

short of a global carbon tax will ever slow them down. Even if we

managed to stop emitting any CO2 today (an impossibility), that which we

have already emitted would result in elevated atmospheric concentrations

for another few hundred years. Even if we managed to stop increasing

our emissions and just held them level (a more realistic possibility),

the CO2 concentration would continue to climb steadily for the next

several hundred years. So there are no easy answers. For comparison,

the ozone hole problem is easier to address because CFCs can be

replaced, and industrial pollution is easier to address because the

pollutants are by-products that can be eliminated. In contrast, CO2 is

the inevitable result of burning fossil fuels (oxidation of carbon is

what produces the energy). People have suggested various geoengineering

approaches to control global climate, for example giant mirrors in space

or giant gates controlling water flowing out of the Mediterranean, but

these seem incredibly costly and more likely to do unexpected harm than

their planned good. Nevertheless, I am optimistic that technological

developments will contribute in many ways to mitigating the problem.

So, I think the physical world will be a very different place in 50

years, but I'm also not convinced the global political situation is any

more stable so it's hard to argue that it should take priority over

other items on the national agenda. I'd be interested to hear your

perspective, especially as someone who has a better idea of how big

deals actually get made. If in 10 years, events are such that everyone

in the U.S. is completely convinced that climate change is a serious

threat, how will our political and industrial leaders respond? If I do

figure out how to get CO2 out of the atmosphere, how do I make my

billion? Just for reference, carbon emission credits are already

trading on various exchanges, and are one way countries can meet their

obligations under Kyoto (e.g. instead of reducing their own emissions

France could pay Russia to reduce theirs). It is anticipated that in

the future, CO2 sequestered in forest soils or in the oceans could also

be traded. I haven't checked in awhile, but the going rate was

something like $3 dollars per ton of CO2. The current uncertainty on

how much CO2 forests in the U.S. are taking up is around 500 billion

tons, and our Kyoto emission reduction obligation would have been

several hundred billion tons. So if we do enter into something like

Kyoto and have to buy credits to meet our obligations, a trillion dollar

industry may be created overnight.

If you want to do some further reading, I can recommend the Summary for

Policymakers and the Technical Summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change's Third Assessment Report Scientific Basis Volume

(http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/). This is a bit dated (2001),

but the next one won't come out until next year. Also, the

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme's Past Global Changes

Report: Environmental Variability and Climate Change

(http://130.92.227.18/4DAction/4DLK_SearchProdType/work) is also a good

read. I also just came across this web page, which looks like a good

perspective: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html. You also

have a great resource there in Palisades. The folks at LDEO really know

what they're talking about. I'm sure they have some "public" lectures

that would be interesting, but you might have more fun sitting in on

technical seminars (which are also open to the public) and just seeing

how long you can hang on. Wally Broecker is a famous and charismatic

geochemist / climatologist there who you should keep an eye out for. He

recently got linked up with Gary Comer (I think the founder of Bass) who

as a result is now funding a number of researchers in my field as well

as investing in a company that is trying to develop a device to actively

remove CO2 out of air.

My guess is that this was more information than you were looking for, so

if your heads gone blurry, just remember that A) we're screwed, B) I get

a cameo in your first film, and C) you'd better come visit me in

Colorado while we still have trees and snow.

Economist article on ocean circulation topic

AESOP'S most famous fable is about a shepherd boy who cried “wolf” so often when no wolf was around that when one did appear nobody took any notice of his warning. Some environmentalists risk falling into the same trap. They are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they will cry “wolf” at any event that might plausibly be thought to support their view of the world.

That attitude makes it hard for responsible scientists studying important environmental issues to know when to raise the alarm. The climate is complex and no single piece of research is likely to prove the existence of a dangerous trend. It is a matter of judgment when enough bits of data have accumulated for action to be justified. So Harry Bryden and his colleagues at Southampton's National Oceanography Centre have been careful not to overstep the mark when commenting on their work on ocean circulation and its possible effects on parts of Europe, which has been published this week. Nevertheless, it is now possible to discern a dim howling in the distance.

Changing places

A lot of heat moves around in the oceans. The currents that do the moving change from time to time, and both computer models and evidence from sediments and ice cores suggest such change can happen in a matter of decades. Dr Bryden's data indicate that what history and the models describe may actually be happening at the moment to currents in the North Atlantic. If true, it would mean a cooler future for north-west Europe—possibly a lot cooler. And that future would be close; the change could happen over the course of two or three decades. Moreover, the most plausible explanation for the shift is, paradoxically, global warming (see article).

Sceptics could, and should, point out the uncertainties—in particular, that the conclusion relies on a mere two individual years' worth of data. Though these indicate a shift in the past decade after four decades of stability, it is just possible they could be blips. Given the murky and statistically uncertain nature of climatology, however, Dr Bryden's result is about as robust as can be expected.

More important, it is the first in what will be a series of results, since oceanography's rise in the scientific pecking order means its practitioners can now afford the instruments and infrastructure to monitor parts of the ocean continuously. The truth will soon out and it is not, therefore, necessary to cry wolf quite yet, though it may behove those paid to think about such things to put more effort into looking at how governments should respond if north-west Europe does get significantly colder in the next few decades.

Dr Bryden's finding, though, also provides a reason to think more clearly about the whole issue of climate change. The Kyoto protocol, which is the subject of a big international meeting in Montreal this week and next, is costly and unlikely to achieve its stated aims. But the meeting is also supposed to begin the process of sketching out what the post-Kyoto world might look like. This result may focus minds, whether that focus is directed towards trying to stop global warming or, if it is decided that climate change is unstoppable, working out the best ways to live with it. And if the next few years do confirm Dr Bryden's result, it will be a triumph for the modellers who predicted it, and a reason to take their cries about other climatic wolves far more seriously.

Battle Lines Set as New York Acts to Cut Emissions

Battle Lines Set as New York Acts to Cut Emissions

By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY, Nov. 23 - New York is adopting California's ambitious new regulations aimed at cutting automotive emissions of global warming gases, touching off a battle over rules that would sharply reduce carbon dioxide emissions while forcing the auto industry to make vehicles more energy efficient over the next decade.

The rules, passed this month by a unanimous vote of the State Environmental Board, are expected to be adopted across the Northeast and the West Coast. But the auto industry has already moved to block the rules in New York State, and plans to battle them in every other state that follows suit.

Environmentalists say the regulations will not lead to the extinction of any class of vehicle, but simply pressure the industry to sell more of the fuel-saving technologies they have already developed, including hybrid systems that use a combination of electricity and gasoline. And that, they say, will curtail one of the main contributors to global warming.

"The two biggest contributors to global warming are power plants and motor vehicles," said David Doniger, a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If you deal with them, you deal with more than two-thirds of the problem."

But automakers contend that the regulations will limit the availability of many sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, vans and larger sedans, since they will effectively require huge leaps in gas mileage to rein in emissions. The industry also says the rules will force them to curb sales of more-powerful engines in the state, and ultimately harm consumers by increasing the cost of vehicles.

The standards are the most ambitious environmental regulations for automobiles since federal fuel economy regulations were enacted in the 1970's. They will be phased in starting with 2009 models and require a roughly 30 percent reduction in automotive emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by the 2016 models.

The new rules will also effectively require an improvement in fuel economy on the order of 40 percent for vehicles sold in the state.

Ten states follow or plan to follow California's air quality rules, which have previously focused on auto emissions that cause smog, and the latest set of rules would for the first time limit carbon dioxide emissions. And as the largest of the 10 states, New York is being closely watched as it institutes the new rules.

If all 10 states and California succeed in enacting the rules, they will form a powerful alternative regulatory bloc accounting for about a third of the nation's auto sales.

"That is so much of the market it should reach a tipping point," Mr. Doniger said. "It won't make sense for the automakers to build two fleets, one clean and one dirty."

New Yorkers will certainly notice the regulations should they survive the court challenges. The state estimates that the rules will increase the cost of a new car or truck by more than $1,000 when fully phased in, an amount it expects car owners to recoup over time through savings at the pump. Vehicles will need to comply with the new standards to be registered in the state.

In early August, more than three months before the regulations were even adopted, automakers from Detroit to Tokyo joined in a suit to block them, making New York the latest legal front in the industry's fight against the measures. After California adopted the regulations in their final form in September 2004, automakers sued in state and federal courts, where the battle is still playing out.

California, unlike other states, has special authority to set its own air quality rules because it did so before passage of the federal Clean Air Act. Other states can pick California's tougher regulations over Washington's.

"If the California regulation actually were in effect today, only a handful of models would meet it," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Toyota, General Motors and several other major automakers.

Judith Enck, a policy adviser to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said she expected more challenges on many fronts, with automakers battling New York every step of the way. "We're ready for them to file a lawsuit if the state sneezes," she said.

An analysis by the State Department of Environmental Conservation said it would take one to five years for drivers of cars, smaller sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks to make up for the higher initial cost of their more fuel-efficient vehicles, assuming a gas price of $2 a gallon. For drivers of heavier S.U.V.'s and pickups, it would take one to three years.

But automakers estimate that the regulation will add about $3,000 to the cost of new cars and trucks and be hard to make up over time. To comply, they say, they will have to restrict sales of their vehicles with the poorest mileage, or redesign them to add new technologies, or to be more aerodynamic and lighter in weight.

"The California legislation would hurt the most the people that rely on large cars, pickups, S.U.V.'s and minivans," Ms. Bergquist said.

Environmental groups say the rules can be met with technology already on the shelf.

"They said that seat belts would put them out of business; they said that air bags would put them out of business; they said fuel economy and emissions regulations would all put them out of business," said David Friedman, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"It turns out it's their unwillingness to innovate that's putting them out of business right now," he added, referring to the current struggles of General Motors and Ford Motor Company.

The legal battles do come at an awkward time. After years of saying that customers cared little about gas mileage, automakers are rushing to assert their green credentials as oil prices have risen. G.M. and Ford have been particularly scarred by the sales slump of their large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks.

In a recent advertisement that has appeared in The New York Times and in many other publications, Ford's chairman and chief executive, William Clay Ford Jr., promoted his company's plan to sell 250,000 vehicles next year that can run on a corn-based ethanol blend instead of on gasoline, and 250,000 hybrid vehicles annually by 2010.

"Innovation is our mission," the advertisement said, adding that the company was building "smarter, safer, more fuel-efficient vehicles."

Industrywide, however, the gas mileage of the average new vehicle sold in the United States is below what it was two decades ago, because leaps in efficiency have been overtaken by increases in the weight of vehicles and in the power of their engines.

The 10 states that either follow California's car rules or are in the process of adopting them are New York, Maine, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

While states are supposed to follow all of California's car rules or stick with Washington's, in practice that has not always been the case. The administration of Gov. George E. Pataki, however, has been an early supporter of the global warming regulations, getting approval from the State Environmental Board on Nov. 9. (The rules do not need to be approved by the State Legislature.)

Many of the industry's legal arguments against the rules are likely to be drawn from a playbook automakers have used in California. One contention is that the regulation of tailpipe emissions is superseded by Washington's authority to regulate fuel economy. Regulators in California have countered that they have authority to take action on any emissions threatening public health.

While global warming and what contributes to it have been controversial issues in the United States, a wide body of international science has linked it to health and environmental dangers, including increases in rates of asthma and infectious disease and threats to coastlines from rising sea levels.

The auto industry does not dispute the issue of global warming, but says policies should be set nationwide, rather than at the state level. President Bush has shown little inclination to do that, having rejected the Kyoto global climate accord early in his first term, but his administration has modestly increased federal fuel economy standards.

In New York, automakers also plan to argue that the regulations were not vetted as thoroughly as the state's laws require. And they will contend that the standards will actually harm the environment by leading to what Ms. Bergquist called "the jalopy effect" because higher initial car prices will discourage people from trading in older models that pollute more than newer ones.

"Less efficient autos will stay on the road longer, and that will increase smog-forming pollutants," she said.

Daniel F. Becker, a top global warming strategist at the Sierra Club, said, "If there were an Olympics of chutzpah, the auto industry would win a gold medal for suing New York claming that their clean car law is bad for the environment."