Cheap Hybrids

My friend Omar sent me a link to Wired's coverage of the LA Auto Show, where American car companies are recalling the good ole days and where carmakers from overseas are actually making the cars people want to drive. Case in point: Hyundai promises "to deliver a full line of hybrids and gasoline vehicles that average 35 mpg by 2015. The cornerstone of the Korean automaker's eco-plan is a hybrid sedan that breaks new ground with lithium polymer batteries Hyundai says are cheaper, lighter and more durable than anything else on the road." That's great about the battery technology. Still, how is this revolutionary when the Prius already gets 46 mpg average? This is for the whole fleet, not just a single model. Another breakthrough is in the cost, as "Blue Editions will be cheaper than the conventional Accent and Elantra, which start at $11,070 and $13,970, respectively."

Meanwhile, the Honda insight concept is the darling of the Paris auto show, with a cost $6,672 less than the Prius and the same gas mileage. Look for a show model at Detroit in January.

Advice for Obama on climate change

In Dot Earth this week, Andy Revkin highlights two sets of recommendations for President-Elect Obama on climate change and energy policy. They include “A Climate Plan for the New Administration,” which was "posted online under the nom de plume “Justinian.”" The second set of recommendations is from "James E. Hansen of NASA, in a fresh pdf, “Tell Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth.”"

Recommendations from "Justinian" could easily represent the DNC, every environmental group, the Center for American Progress, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, and the Rocky Mountain Institute combined:

1. AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING
2. REORIENT AND REORGANIZE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE THE PRIORITY OF GLOBAL WARMING
3. FORMALLY FIND THAT GREENHOUSE GASES ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
4. INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF NEW MOTOR VEHICLES
5. INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF BUILDINGS AND APPLIANCES
6. MANAGE ENERGY PRODUCTION TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS
7. CURTAIL EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
8. ELIMINATE SUBSIDIES THAT REWARD HIGHLY POLLUTING ENERGY RESOURCES
9. MANAGE THE PUBLIC LANDS TO SEQUESTER CARBON AND PROVIDE HABITAT FOR AT-RISK SPECIES
10. CREATE GREEN MARKETS WITH DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PURCHASING POWER
11. CREATE A NATIONAL CLIMATE CORPS
12. PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

Yeah, I know. All caps. It's because they want people to listen.

Testing new ad

Hey readers! I have added a new sponsor ad to the sidebar as a test. If you hate the sidebar ad, let me know. I have tried to keep the ads unobtrusive. The revenue from this blog supports the efforts of the Maryland Carbon Reduction Action Group (CRAG), a group of people that is voluntarily reducing carbon emissions. I share the results of these actions here on the blog and let you know what works and what does not. To date since September, the blog has made $73.36. These funds will be used to purchase energy saving light bulbs, insulation, and other items for the members of the club to use in their homes. The funds also help with materials for presentations to different organizations on how to save nergy, save money, and save greenhouse gases. I say "will" because Google won't cut a check until it's at least 100$.

Thanks for your support of local warming. Posting has been thin recently because I am putting together an art show for the inaguration but I will continue to post on a regular basis. Posts may be a little thin during the holidays though...

Shannon

Why we should not let GM fail

You've heard the arguments on both sides. On the one hand, our auto companies have been mismanaged, their labor contracts supposedly cost too much, their products are inappropriate for the green age, and if we give them a bailout, we will be throwing good money after bad. On the other hand, 10% of the US works for the auto industry, the US needs a manufacturing base to survive economic crises and create wealth, and Obama plans to retool these plants to make the cars of the 21st Century. But there is more to be said.

First, we need the auto industry to survive, period. The most obvious reason is the jobs in not just manufacturing, but also parts, servicing, etc. But there are other reasons. Without auto manufacturing we would have lacked the innovation at Chrysler that produced parts of the space program. Auto manufacturing is also key to particular regions of the country the way the coal industry is key to places like West Virginia. Letting these regions die creates 3rd world regions within the Unites States. Industry is also part of the robustness of our economic engine; if other parts of the economy like technology fail, there are still machines to be built.

The future also depends on auto manufacturing. That is because the US is about ten years from installing an electrical grid that can support vehicles that are zero emissions. Yes, I said it. Electric vehicles will plug into a smart grid using energy produced by things like wind, solar, solar thermal, and geothermal power. This grid will connect regions of the country together. The construction of this grid and of an improved highway system will help the economy in the short term. More to the point, the US will be able to export the grid technology, energy technology, and auto technology, and sell products to other countries. American labs are already producing the next wave of products; our R&D is some of the best in the world. We should continue to capitalize on our own innovation.

But what about cost competitiveness, you say? Well, we already talked about exporting technology. The US will also have to convince other nations to charge tariffs to import autos from countries that don't pay workers a fair wage and that don't regulate greenhouse gases. The US is already free to do this on its own. Ironically, the US is the main reason the world is not moving more quickly towards greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

We also can use the retrofitted autos to reduce animosity towards the US. The main reason the US does not get along with South American neighbors is because of the military's relationship with oil production in these countries. What if we don't need their oil? They will still need our technology and our vehicles.

The current financial crisis, I think, is really a crisis of leadership and integrity. It is created by the type of leadership that speculation encourages, where short-term profits mean everything and a CEO can richly reward him or herself and friends while cannibalizing a company. Or create cars of the present consumption ethic while ignoring the near-future cars of the green era. This same problem has become obvious with the financial sector bailout: money given by the Fed to lubricate loan-offering is being hoarded and given as bonuses and dividends. Another example of short-sighted greed: the CEO of Exxon-Mobil is making so much money short-term for his stockholders that not even the Rockefellers can make him prepare for a future that regulates greenhouse gases. This will hurt Exxon-Mobil in the near future. So I understand the hesitance to give money to companies under these circumstances. But certainly we can establish limits on how money is used and require accounting transparency to verify how it is used.

People will have to buy cars again soon enough. And they will want to buy American. And they will want to buy green. And the green cars ought to rely on a whole suite of technologies and products produced in the US. Somebody will be making those things. It ought to be us.

Obama: no delays on climate change action

The New York Times reports that President Elect Obama "confirmed on Tuesday that he plans to stick to the aggressive targets he had set earlier for fighting climate change and for spurring the development of clean-energy technology, saying, “Delay is no longer an option.”"

The remarks were striking for being made in what was billed as a “surprise taped statement,” before a bipartisan conference on climate change in Los Angeles that included governors who have battled the Bush administration by trying to pass stricter pollution standards than federal guidelines require.

Officials from at least 10 other countries were also present, and Mr. Obama addressed his comments to them when he said, “Solving this problem will require all of us working together.” He said he had asked lawmakers who will attend a climate-change conference next month in Poland to report back to him...

Mr. Obama cast his planned energy-development measures as vital to economic revival, by generating an estimated five million “green jobs,” as well as critical to national security, by reducing United States dependence on foreign oil...

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” Mr. Obama said. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season...”

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs...”

Mr. Obama promised to set “strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020, and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050...”

“When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

In case you were wondering.

Don't look for Obama at climate talks

Despite many wishes to the contrary, Obama won't be attending the upcoming climate talks in Poland. From the Washington Post:

OSLO (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama will not attend United Nations talks in Poland next month working on a new treaty for fighting global warming, the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat said on Monday.

"There is not going to be an Obama delegation in Poznan," Yvo de Boer, head of the Secretariat, told a news conference in Germany that was also shown on the Internet. The 190-nation talks will be held from December 1-12 in the Polish city of Poznan.

"There is one president at a time," he said. Obama will take over from President George W. Bush on January 20, 2009.

After Obama won the presidency last month, de Boer expressed hopes that Obama might attend the Poznan meeting, which is due to work on details of a new climate treaty.

A new pact to succeed the existing Kyoto Protocol is meant to be in place by the end of 2009. De Boer said that the U.S. delegation in Poznan would liaise closely with Obama's team.

CRAG meeting today

We had a Carbon Reduction Action Group (CRAG) meeting today at the library. Zayn gave a presentation about solar power installations that dovetailed with his last presentation about solar hot water heating. Door prizes included a Hope sticker, LED Christmas lights, and candelabra bulbs. We also had an attendee from the Boonsboro Recycling Task Force.

The Boonsboro paper today had a little article and picture about last Task Force meeting; the picture is of me, the coordinator of the Task Force and the head of recycling for Washington County holding up recycling bumper stickers.

The next CRAG meeting will be in February.

Artifacts from the future

From WIRED

Old news

Somehow I missed this article where I was quoted in the Frederick News-Post about the presidential candidates and global warming. I guess I was on vacation. Anyway, I just saw it: http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=82165

Cool Capital Challenge youth campaign

From the Cool Capital Challenge:

YOUTH CAMPAIGN TASK FORCE MEETING

We want YOUTH to lead the Cool Capital Challenge. Come to our task force meeting to help us ramp up this campaign Collectively, we have the power to galvanize everyone in the capital region to take action on global warming, in order to bring about an immediate and dramatic reduction in regional greenhouse gas emissions to lead the US in reversing global warming When: November 19th, 2008 What Time: 1.p.m. Where: 2437 15th Street NW Washington DC Josephine Butler Parks Center Please confirm attendance to mpulido@coolcapital.org

VA Climate Change Commission: 100 actions

InRich.com shares that Virginia's state Commission on Climate Change "settled on more than 100 recommendations yesterday during a meeting at the General Assembly Building in Richmond."

Here's a peach: "Kaine says the environment will be a key focus of his final year as governor. " Isn't this the same VA governor who is pressing for offshore drilling?

Anyway, some of the recommendations include (I quote from the article):

• numerous conservation measures, including a requirement, to be phased in over time, that new commercial buildings be constructed to energy-saving standards.
• financial incentives for power companies to work with customers to conserve energy
• the construction of nuclear-power plants
• greater incentives for protecting places such as forests and wetlands, which consume carbon dioxide

The commission also set greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are more stringent than those supported by the Governor:

Kaine wants Virginia to cut emissions of greenhouse gases 30 percent from projected 2025 levels. The panel's recommendations are designed to do that.

But by 17-5 vote, the commission backed a tougher goal -- supported by many scientists and environmentalists -- of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

ACEEE's state energy efficiency database

How cool is this? The American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy has compiled a database of energy efficiency policy for states. The link is here. Want better policies for your state? See what other states have done. The image to the right is from ACEEE.

MWCOG launches global warming blueprint

The MWCOG includes parts of Maryland, including Frederick County. From the Washington Post:

With 1.6 million new residents and nearly as many new jobs projected for the Washington region in the next two decades, local officials are struggling to cope with already polluted air and water and still absorb expected growth.

Yesterday, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, a consortium of local officials from the District, Maryland and Virginia, outlined an ambitious blueprint for doing just that. Failing to act, the organization's board said, could have "potentially catastrophic consequences" for the region's health and economic well-being. The report was endorsed 24 to 1 by COG's board.

"Turn off the lights, turn down the heat, take the bus," said Montgomery County Council member Nancy Floreen (D-At large), who headed the panel that examined ways to reduce the region's carbon footprint.

The report proposes that governments, businesses and residents in the region cut greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent below forecast levels by 2012, 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. The goals are among the most ambitious ever set by local governments, said Stuart Freudberg, COG's environment chief.

The report also encourages local governments to jointly purchase energy and to set up a regionwide education program to promote driving less, recycling more and using less water.

Floreen acknowledged that COG has limited power in the region to compel participation in its plans.

"Let's agree it is a goal. We don't have the power to regulate per se but actually Montgomery and Fairfax have already basically signed on to this," Floreen said. "The question of implementation is significant and needs to be worked on."

The Washington region is experiencing the effects of climate change, with rising sea levels and a warmer Chesapeake Bay, the report says. "Changes in the climate will have significant effects on the region's natural and built environments, all sectors of its economy, and its residents and families, communities, and workplaces," it says.
Some of the proposals could save money, such as improving the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, vehicles and transit systems. Others, such as buying wind, solar and nuclear power, would be more expensive, the report says.

Loudoun County Supervisor Lori L. Waters (R-Broad Run), a COG board member and the only dissenter yesterday, said she was troubled by elements of the plan.
She questioned whether there is a definite link between greenhouse emissions and increased temperatures. She also said it is unclear what effect one region could have on global warming. "We are talking about another very expensive program," she said. "We are going to push businesses away."

Governments in the District and Fairfax, Howard and Montgomery counties have begun increasing the number of hybrid vehicles in their fleets while stepping up recycling, encouraging reduced energy use and promoting mass transit.

What should be Obama's number one priority?

From the Washington Post:

A Category 5 hurricane has hit the world's financial system, but a bigger storm is approaching. Climate change threatens the economic, political and environmental health of the world. Now is the time to remake the vast systems that power the nation and the world. The president must make this his top economic priority -- and establish a National Energy Council in the White House to get the job done. Critical needs for investment include:

Modernizing the electric-power grid with digital equipment and creating renewable-energy transmission corridors to bring wind and solar energy to market.

Retooling Detroit to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles that will get American cars off oil.

Putting U.S. contractors and builders to work on energy efficiency. Chicago's plan to retrofit 40 percent of its buildings by 2020 is a model approach for the nation.

Investing much more boldly in research, development and deployment of the low-carbon technologies of the future.

Capping our emissions in order to put a price on carbon, provide incentives for investment in alternatives and secure a new U.N.-led global climate agreement

-- Ted Turner, chairman, United Nations Foundation

Help for Maryland Brook Trout

How can we protect the brook trout in Maryland from development and climate change? I have written about this topic here before. The Baltimore Sun's "On the Outdoors" section had a little writeup about the threats to brook trout on Friday. Brook trout in Maryland are a dying breed:

Study after study show brook trout are in trouble through no fault of their own. Brookies love cold water, clear water and lots of little critters floating by to eat. But overdevelopment, loss of buffers and habitat, and climate change are proving to be the trifecta of doom.

The article suggests, "for starters, perhaps the O'Malley administration could divert some of the Program Open Space money being used to buy bleachers and tennis courts to purchase land around some of the streams that still have brookies. Or maybe the Maryland Department of the Environment could put protecting so-called "stronghold watersheds" near the top of the list."

Link to Chesapeake Bay Climate Change Report

The report I discussed in this blog post is located at http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/climchangereport.pdf. Enjoy! I know I will...

Obama to reverse Bush climate change policies

President Obama will reverse over 200 actions of the Bush administration, including obstructions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The California legislation that was stymied by EPA will be passed, allowing other states like Maryland to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles. From MSNBC:

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team...

'Effectively tackling global warming'

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states [including Maryland] had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Carbon dioxide emissions

Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.

Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.

The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.

"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.

That's change.

Back Soon

Hey I am back from St. Croix- thought I could post from there but the internet was down...