Hilarious video clip of Will Ferrell as Bush discussing climate change.
Hilarious video clip of Will Ferrell as Bush discussing climate change.
Posted by scottwalsh on December 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Green Power in NY. If just 10% of New York's households purchased Green power it would prevent nearly three billion pounds of carbon dioxide, 13 million pounds of sulfur dioxide, and nearly four million pounds of nitrogen oxides from getting into our air each year. You also support the development of more facilities that generate electricity from renewable resources. Right now, it costs slightly more, but it's worth it (and has been known to be cheaper because of high oil prices). Currently you can select lots of different green energy options. All options provide power directly to the grid. You can buy green power separeately through Community Energy (212-372-9696) www.NewWindEnergy.com or Sterling Planet (877-457-2306) wwwmsterlingplanet.com. Or, you can go with an integrated company that provides Green energy and get just one bill. Two companies that do this are: Con Edison Solutions (888-320-8991) www.ConEdSolutions.com/greenpower or Econnergy at 800-805-8586 www.econnergy.com/green. You can go to the websites and find out which ones are solar, wind, etc.. In general, they cost from a few pennies per Kwh more to a surcharge of $5 more per month. All are 100% green solutions. Other ways to learn more about Green Power is NYS Dept of Public Servce 866-GRN-POWR or Power Your Way 877-668-3234 wwwmpoweryourway.com/greenpower.
Posted by seaver on December 11, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
| Pacific islanders move to escape global warming Mon Dec 5, 2005 4:24 PM ET By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent MONTREAL (Reuters) - Rising seas have forced 100 people on a Pacific island to move to higher ground in what may be the first example of a village formally displaced because of modern global warming, a U.N. report said on Monday. With coconut palms on the coast already standing in water, inhabitants in the Lateu settlement on Tegua island in Vanuatu started dismantling their wooden homes in August and moved about 600 yards (meters) inland. "They could no longer live on the coast," Taito Nakalevu, a climate change expert at the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, told Reuters during a 189-nation conference in Montreal on ways to fight climate change. So-called "king tides," often whipped up by cyclones, had become stronger in recent years and made Lateu uninhabitable by flooding the village 4 to 5 times a year. "We are seeing king tides across the region flooding islands," he said. The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said in a statement that the Lateu settlement "has become one of, if not the first, to be formally moved out of harm's way as a result of climate change." The scientific panel that advises the United Nations projects that seas could rise by almost 3 feet (a meter) by 2100 because of melting icecaps and warming linked to a build-up of heat-trapping gases emitted by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and autos. Many other coastal communities are vulnerable to rising seas, such as the U.S. city of New Orleans, the Italian city of Venice or settlements in the Arctic where a thawing of sea ice has exposed coasts to erosion by the waves. CORAL ATOLLS Pacific Islanders, many living on coral atolls, are among those most at risk. Off Papua New Guinea, about 2,000 people on the Cantaret Islands are planning to move to nearby Bougainville island, four hours' boat ride to the southwest. Two uninhabited Kiribati islands, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea, disappeared underwater in 1999. "In Tegua, the dwellings are moving first. The chief has moved, he has to start the process, so his people are now following," Nakalevu said. A church would also be dismantled and moved inland. Nakalevu said the rising seas seemed linked to climate change. It was unknown if the coral base of the island, about 12 square miles, might be subsiding. Most villagers rely on yams, beans and other crops grown on higher ground. To help Lateu, Canada had provided $50,000 to build a system to collect and store up to 9,500 gallons (36,000 liters) of rain water to break dependence on springs by the coast. In the Arctic, indigenous peoples in Shishmaref in Alaska and in Tuktoyaktuk in Canada were considering moving because of climate change, U.N. officials said. "The peoples of the Arctic and the small islands of this world face many of the same threats," Klaus Toepfer, UNEP's executive director, said in a statement. "The melting and receding of sea ice and the rising of sea levels, storms surges and the like are the first manifestations of big changes underway which eventually will touch everyone on the planet," he said. | |
© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. |
Posted by scottwalsh on December 06, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
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.
Posted by seaver on December 02, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
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.
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.
Posted by jake_kaufmann on December 02, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1)
I thought this was a pretty good summary http://biz.yahoo.com/brn/051018/17520.html?.v=1
Posted by TomWideman on November 30, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Battle Lines Set as New York Acts to Cut Emissions
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."
Posted by seaver on November 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/takeaction.asp?items
Also, seems like a useful information source and, by joining the "virtual march" a small way to demonstrate support for the cause.
Posted by seaver on November 21, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Home Audit Can Pinpoint Energy Lapses
PELHAM, N.Y. — My house, a 1922 colonial with plaster walls, a gas boiler and 34 windows, looks from the outside like a solid citizen with thrifty ways. But step a little closer and you will find unexplained drafts, a chilly kitchen and winter heating bills that have gone as high as $450 a month. With a household budget so tight it squeaks and the cost of gas expected to climb 40 percent, I decided it was time to bring in an expert.
That expert arrived one morning in mid-October bearing Ghostbusters-style cases and gauges and wearing a T-shirt emblazoned "City Scrap." He introduced himself in a soft Barbadian accent as Henderson Callender, an energy auditor at the Community Environmental Center, a nonprofit group in Queens that makes house calls under a state program, Home Performance With EnergyStar.
The program, begun as a pilot in 2001, now serves the entire state. By October, it had audited nearly 9,000 homes, saving each an average of $600 a year in return for an average of about $8,000 in improvements. Other states and municipalities have similar programs, many listed at energystar.gov under "home energy analysis."
Mr. Callender's tallying of energy leaks and lapses would cost $350, but that would be deductible from the cost of any repairs done by his state-accredited group. We started with a basic rundown of the house, including the cold kitchen and the appliances - all recent models and reasonably energy-efficient, I told him. He nodded, took notes and went to work.
Mr. Callender examined the gas boiler, 15 years old and rather dusty, but not yet wheezing. He pronounced it 78 percent efficient ("22 percent of your heating dollars are going up the chimney"), pretty typical for a boiler that age.
On to the kitchen, which sits over a dirt-floor crawl space. In vain efforts to remedy the cold, I had caulked and weatherstripped windows and a door leading to a patio, insulated the floor, replaced the sweep under the door and added a threshold bolstered by a rolled-up rug. Nothing seemed to work.
Mr. Callender opened a trapdoor to the crawl space and said darkly, "I feel a cool breeze." Somewhere, he suspected, cracks were inviting in cold air.
Upstairs in the kitchen, Mr. Callender asked politely, "Is this house insulated?"
Well, I don't know, I said, mumbling something about Styrofoam under the siding, and maybe a previous owner, and ... umm ... He fixed me with a solid gaze and said: "The first thing - the first thing - is to insulate the walls. It's like putting a blanket around the house."
After pulling out one of his monitors, he discovered that the stove leaked gas whenever it was on. "First time in 10 years of doing this I've seen that happen," he said, edging away. I made plans for a new stove - and a new gas and carbon monoxide detector.
On the second floor, Mr. Callender used his palm to check the temperature of a plaster wall. "Feel how cool that is?" he asked, adding that the presence of plaster often means that a house is so old that it has no insulation.
Imagine my relief when he discovered signs of insulation in the attic.
Back downstairs, he did a blower door test: He hauled out an adjustable metal frame with a vinyl covering and a circular opening, set the frame into an open doorway, inserted a powerful fan in the opening and proceeded to suck air from the house. A gauge reported a number meaning "not very airtight": further evidence that insulation was absent.
As Mr. Callender prepared to leave, he gave it to me straight. Along with insulating the walls and ceilings of first-floor rooms that jut out, he recommended insulating the pipes that carry water to and from the boiler and cleaning the boiler. He would also have foam sprayed into the cracks in the crawl space, and its earth floor covered with plastic to keep out cold and moisture. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs would help, he added; written report to follow.
Later I spoke to Peter R. Smith, president of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, which runs the EnergySmart program. (Those interested in participating can go to getenergysmart.org, click on the blue logo that says "Home Performance With Energy Star" and then "Locate a B.P.I.-certified home performance contractor near you.")
Contractors must be certified to take part, he stressed, and audits are done "from a whole-house perspective," measuring not only energy efficiency but also comfort (how cold can you stand it?), affordability (how much can you pay for heat?) and health (are there gas or carbon monoxide leaks?).
In addition to the rebate of the audit cost, if the auditor then makes the improvements, the program offers a cash incentive of 10 percent of the costs (up to $3,000) if the homeowner pays out of pocket. Low-interest loans are available, along with grants of up to $5,000 for households whose incomes fall below 80 percent of the state median.
As for me, I plan to have the Community Environmental Center (cecenter.org) clean the boiler (about $100), seal the cracks ($750) and possibly insulate some of the first-floor ceilings ($699). With the $350 rebate, the 10 percent incentive (about $150), and the hope of savings of maybe $400 this winter, that seems the way to go. I'll insulate the pipes myself and switch to compact fluorescents.
What I won't do right away is sink $11,900 into 34 new windows. And I'm on the fence about insulating all the walls: Mr. Callender said that if I do the first floor now (about $2,300), and the rest in 2006 (about $2,200), it will help a great deal. And if I wait until after Jan. 1, I can apply for a new federal energy tax credit of $500.
Meanwhile I know more about my house and am even feeling virtuous about my energy-related expenditures. With my soon-to-be-warmer kitchen - and a new stove - I'll spend more time with my children baking cookies this winter, and let the winds whistle outside instead of indoors.
Posted by seaver on November 17, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
I Vant to Drink Your Vatts
WASHINGTON — Households across the land are infested with vampires. That's what energy experts call those gizmos with two sharp teeth that dig into a wall socket and suck juice all night long. All day long, too, and all year long.
Most people assume that when they turn off the television set it stops drawing power.
But that's not how most TV's (and VCR's and other electronic devices) work. They remain ever in standby mode, silently sipping energy to the tune of 1,000 kilowatt hours a year per household, awaiting the signal to roar into action.
"As a country we pay $1 billion a year to power our TV's and VCR's while they're turned off," said Maria T. Vargas, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, which sets voluntary standards for energy use, and grants its ratings to the most efficient products.
There are billions of vampires in the United States, drawing more than enough current in the typical house to light a 100-watt light bulb 24/7, according to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, a research arm of the Energy Department.
These silent energy users include the chargers for devices that run on batteries, like cellphones, iPods and personal digital assistants, and all the devices around the house that have adapters because they run on direct current, like answering machines. Some have both batteries and steady power use, like cordless phones. Experts call all those adapters "wall warts." Many deliver in direct current only half as much energy as they suck out of the wall; the rest is wasted.
Vampires and wall warts are only part of the problem. DSL or cable modems, among other things, are increasingly likely to be left on around the clock. A computer left on continuously can draw nearly as much power as an efficient refrigerator - 70 to 250 watts, depending on the model and how it is used.
It's not that hard to engineer a more energy-aware computer: Dell introduced one in 2004 that drew 1.4 watts in "sleep" mode and just under one watt when "off." But energy-efficient design is not necessarily rewarded in the marketplace, where people who are shopping for the latest shiny electronic device are unlikely to put its energy consumption rate while "off" topmost on a list of considerations.
Energy efficiency experts say the answer lies instead in industry-wide standards, which would require manufacturers to build appliances with low consumption when in standby.
Just about everyone supports such a move. President Bush early on announced that electric devices purchased by the federal government would need to meet a standby consumption standard. Congress is pushing forward, too. This summer it passed a bill to set testing protocols for measuring energy use, clearing the way for nationwide consumption standards. The Energy Department held a meeting this week to discuss developing the standards. California has already adopted its own, to take effect in 2006.
Among the worst vampires are big-screen televisions, mainly because of satellite and cable boxes, which can draw up to 30 watts when turned off, experts say.
Indeed, the words "off" and "on" no longer seem to apply; a better word might be "idling."
"They won't even say 'off' now; they'll say 'power,' " noted Alan K. Meier, a senior energy analyst at the International Energy Agency, a consortium based in Paris. "My washing machine draws five watts even when there's no sign of intelligent life."
One culprit is the microchip, whose presence is revealed by a "soft button" instead of a switch. Microchips are generally an improvement over mechanical controls because they are more durable and sophisticated. They also help reduce the size and weight of consumer products. But they require a continuous trickle of electricity. Energy experts say it would be simple to cut that trickle in half - not by running around the house unplugging everything in sight, which would require much resetting of clocks, but by engineering products differently.
It doesn't cost much to make a more efficient device: sometimes just 50 cents a unit, they say. But consumers don't consider invisible energy use - "there's no labeling of power use in 'standby,' " Mr. Meier said, and "no way for people to recognize what a low-standby device is" - making government-imposed energy efficiency the best hope, he said.
The Energy Department would be in charge of setting standby mode standards that would apply to all consumer products sold in the United States. "Things may be a small step for each individual consumer," said Douglas Faulkner, the acting assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, "but they can add up across the country."
The Energy Star program, whose labels on electronics help consumers comparison shop, has announced that it will not rate a product that fails its standby mode requirements (consumers in the market for VCR's, among other things, can see how they rate at energystar.gov).
"Consumers are buying more electronics, and there are more consumers," Mr. Faulkner said. "So the amount used by these devices is going up."
All the more reason to make each item as energy efficient as possible.
Posted by seaver on November 17, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Recent Comments