Greed and Stubbornness Continue to Hold World Hostage

Climate talks in Cancun, Mexico will bring less chance of finding a solution to curbing greenhouse gas emissions than previous years talks. At the heart of the stalemate is what all sides see as a "balanced package". But what one side calls a balance is very different than what the other side calls a balance.

Why the rift and why are there opposing sides when the whole world wants the same thing? Money and action.

One 'side' is the poorer developing countries, on the other is the wealthier developed countries. Developing countries are demanding an increase in the amount of aid they receive from developed countries. Developed nations are demanding that emerging nations, like China and India, do more to curb their soaring greenhouse gas emission and to allow more oversight to ensure they are on course to meet their goals.

The bottom line is that the ability for all of us the world over to breath cleaner air is being held hostage by greedy and stubborn nations on both sides of the issue.

Hope is the driving force to continue these fruitless talks in an effort to reach agreements that both sides can accept. The expectations of a choking world that is suffering from increased flooding, droughts and heat waves are fading, but that hope is fading with each new round of talks.

I believe time could be better spent in educating the world population on how to deal with the calamities that are the result of increased carbon emissions. But, of course, that process would be stalled as well while we wait on decisions as to who will pay for it.


China Threatens Deliberate Release of Potent Greenhouse Gas

Global Warming is Real, Mr. Klaus

The annual world economic forum of global leaders was held in Davos, Switzerland this past week, and Czech President Vaclav Klaus used this forum to verbally attack Al Gore over his stance on global warming.

"I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. "I don't see the statistical data for that."

Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.

"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom. Al Gore is an important person in this movement."

Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, he said that he was more worried about the reaction to the perceived dangers than the consequences.

"I'm afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world," he said.

"I'm more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself."

I agree that people tend to become alarmed over perceived dangers, that is after all what warnings are meant to do, if they are taken seriously. This climate threat has been perceived by climatologists for many years and those early predictions are beginning to take shape. The non-scientific community needs only observe the changes in weather patterns and the resulting destruction of wildlife habitat to see this is true.

You cannot dismiss the fact that polar ice sheets are melting at a record pace. You cannot ignore the fact that navigable routes have opened through the arctic, about 30 years ahead of predictions.

Nor can you ignore the fact that the planets surface is warming up.

The greatest debate over causal factors is whether these changes are the result of a natural cycle or are they man-made.

The burning of fossil fuels has certainly taken its toll, not only on human health but also on the health of the atmosphere as a result of excavating earths resources, burning those resources and releasing the resulting gases into the atmosphere. The resultant greenhouse gases increase the planets temperature. Not alarmist theory, scientific fact.

Earth’s climate is a closed system. Everything that exists in this system stays in this system. The melting of polar ice caps produces evaporation and the increased atmospheric moisture results in increased rainfall which then leads to increased severity of hurricanes. A side effect of this increased hurricane intensity is the associated low pressure sucks more moisture away from the drier climates of the world creating more severe droughts. As a result, agricultural patterns worldwide are being affected.

Polar ice cap melt also increases sea levels which could result in future category 2 and 3 storms causing much more severe flooding than anticipated otherwise, in low-lying coastal areas.

As the planet grows ever warmer, and former cold zones give way to rising temperatures, plant and animal species are loosing their habitat and dying off thereby decreasing biodiversity. This does not bode well for planets inhabitants, for man and beast.

Are these the ramblings of ‘alarmists’ for the purpose of “radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy”? It seems Mr. Klaus, and by association, all other naysayers, is more concerned with the health of the market system than with the health of our planet. And this perfectly illustrates the very reason why we are in this mess today.

We dismiss scientific findings at our own peril. This has proven itself many times throughout history. Taking heed of this lesson is of the utmost importance to prevent a predicted global calamity.

It is a widespread fact that species and their habitats are on the decrease while chances for ecosystems to adapt naturally are diminishing. This cannot be merely brushed aside as ‘alarmist’.


Sources:
Science Daily, Sep 22, 2005

Global Issues, Jan 1, 2009

Climate Change Weather Patterns

Greenpeace study: Cattle Ranching claims 80% of Amazon Deforestation

Greenpeace Brazil has released a report at the World Social Forum in Belém showing that up to 80 percent of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest is due to an increase in raising cattle for human consumption.

Brazil has quickly become the largest exporter of beef in the world, but they are not satisfied with their current market share and plan to increase production. The plan flies in the face of their supposed commitment to tackle climate change. The country is currently the fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, 75% of which stem from deforestation.

Unfortunately, similar as in the United States, the government fully backs the agriculture industry with many politicians firmly in the pockets of agribusiness. They’ve even recently proposed legislation to prevent environmental groups from setting up in the Amazon.

However, with the economy moving how it is, expansion is becoming less and less of an option.


Further reading:
UN’s top climate scientist urges people to combat climate change by eating less meat.


Try going vegetarian in an attempt to help to ease climate warming.

Meat is murder on the environment

Progress Toward Addressing Climate Change Fails Again

Are we really committed to combating climate change? We talk a great game. We seem to recognize that something must be done. But when it comes right down to it, there is very little action.

Industrialized and developing countries get together periodically to discuss the problem and toss around ideas on how to deal with it, but in the end any solution is so watered down that it becomes ineffective.

Money is made available for developing countries, through a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism, but everyone agrees that the amount raised ($80 million) is far below what is needed to build the necessary flood defenses, to develop much needed drought-resistant crops, and to produce storm warnings. This fund represents the human side of climate change, something that tends to be lost when discussing how much pollution should be cut back by industrialized nations.

The biggest polluters are of course industrialized nations, such as China, India, America, and Japan, who raise the loudest objections to pay more into the fund and consistently fail to reach agreements to make deeper emissions cuts. Understandably, developing nations are disappointed at their position and stubbornness. Everyone is paving a road of good intentions, but good intentions never get anything done.

U.N. projections are that poor nations will need tens of billions of dollars a year by 2030 to cope with climate change. Poland spent 24 million euros ($31.84 million) just to host the Dec. 1-12 conference and the only concrete result was to streamline access by developing nations to the fund while rich nations secured controls to ensure cash was properly spent.

This summit represented the halfway point between Bali in 2007 and Copenhagen in 2009. It was scheduled to reach an agreement to expand the Kyoto Protocol committing industrialized countries to make deeper emission cuts in the short-term and to produce a longer-term agreement encompassing all countries. No discernable progress was made.

EU leaders in Brussels agreed a pact on Friday to cut greenhouse gases by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 -- after making costly concessions to east European countries. Is this going to be another disappointment of more talk and less action?

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions was never expected to be cheap or easy. It requires drastic changes in lifestyles for all of us, rich and poor alike. Everyone knew this before agreeing to get together to create an action plan to overcome our past mistakes. Time passes, pollution levels remain unaltered. The time has come to actually commit to a plan. Industrialized nations, being the biggest polluters should bear the largest financial burden to ease the rest of world of their disproportionate suffering.

This could be our last best chance to make a difference. Let’s make it effective.

EPA Should be Overhauled

The subject of coal was brought up during the recent presidential campaign cycle and President-elect Obama as well as Senator John McCain made some allusions to keeping this 19th century fossil fuel industry alive. Truth of the matter is we continue to need the energy this sooty polluting energy source provides. However, it is not the only option and the EPA is doing nothing to force this industry into cleaning up its act.

Dozens of new coal plants across the country have been put on hold in response to EPA allowing coal-burning power plants to build without addressing global warming. The coal industry’s response is to counter-sue in an attempt to prevent states from acting to fight global warming. This is just incredulous.

During the presidential campaign, the coal industry launched a $35 million ad campaign to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change. The Australian Coal Industry spent millions to launch an offense to persuade the public that it is not a climate change villain. These advertising campaigns, quite simply, mask the harmful and polluting nature of coal-fired power plants. The public knows these advertising claims are lies. And yet they continue to try to greenwash the truth hoping the public will buy into their self-delusional pipedream.

The money spent on these greenwashing campaigns would be better spent in developing renewable energy sources. If the coal and oil industries would redirect their efforts and invest their very sizable fortunes into developing alternative energy the entire planet could get there sooner and everyone would be healthier for it. Money spent on new coal plants could also help develop wind and/or solar farms, geothermal plants or biomass development. Why fight the inevitable?

It disturbs and saddens me greatly that the EPA could issue such permits to an industry that has historically been the single most visible polluter of our environment without requiring controls on carbon dioxide. As far as I am concerned it is an indictment against the EPA. For what are they good for if they are not going to take appropriate measures to protect our environment and our health? Their action is the converse to their very name.

I can understand why the coal industry wants to do what it can to maintain its ‘business as usual’. It is the very mindset of human behavior to continue on the course that it knows best. But when that course is proving to be harmful to the health of the general population, not to mention the very environment in which we all live, then that course needs to be altered.

We as a nation have understood for decades that polluting our water, air and land cannot be tolerated. The federal government created an entire agency to protect the environment because we all know that in our endeavors to become a powerful nation we were fouling our own nests. The EPA has been given tools to combat polluters, the Clean Air Act being most notable, but continue down a path that all but proves they are in bed with these very polluters.

Other recent decisions have indicated that EPA Director Brown is, at best, sympathetic to industry polluters, and, at worst, being bought off by them. The EPA has obviously lost its mandate to protect us and therefore should be overhauled.

Finally, we will have a president that will actually listen to scientists and view them as something more than just court-jesters. The EPA better sit up and take notice.

I know the coal industry and all its related support groups employ a lot of people, but coal truly is not the answer. It has polluted our world for far too long. Alternative methods need to be employed, sooner rather than later. Monetary factors cannot dictate our future health. The only parties arguing the permits should be upheld are those who have a financial interest in having these coal-power plants be built (American Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the National Association of Manufacturers). This sends a very loud message that they value profit over our health.

The Supreme Court will go no further than to tell the EPA that they must decide whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare. But we already have tons of proof concerning the negative effects of excess carbon dioxide and where it comes from. Let us stop wasting money on more studies. Let us stop spinning our wheels trying to side-step the obvious, albeit expensive, solution. Let us develop renewable energy sources and get these industries up and running now.

Further reading:
CoalisnottheAnswer.org
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Greenwashing Dirty Coal
EPA Decision on Standards for Greenhouse Gases Draw Criticism
Is Bush interfering with EPA decision?
EPA Car Emissions Ruling Contested on Hill

Ocean is Growing Acidic

New research by scientists at the University of Chicago have documented that the ocean is growing more acidic faster than previously thought.

These findings correlates with increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide generated by human activities.

Yet another reason to slow down our consumption of fossil fuels. But, other human activities produce carbon dioxide as well, such as by producing cement and by carrying out land clearing and forest combustion. These activities only result in approximately 22% of the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The process of generating electricity is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the United States, representing 41% of all CO2 emissions.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally through plant photosynthesis, animal respiration, plant and animal decay, volcanoes, and diffusion out of the oceans. Without this natural production of CO2, life on our planet would cease to exist. The balance of oxygen and carbon we need for life began to change with the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s. At that time humans began adding to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rate of CO2 production has steadily increased to the point that global warming has become a critical issue.

Carbon dioxide emissions have risen from 280 ppm in 1850 to 364 ppm in the 1990s. This increase has caused about 50-60% of the global warming. Fossil fuel combustion for energy generation causes about 70-75% of the carbon dioxide emissions, being the main source of carbon dioxide emissions. The remaining 20-25% of the emissions are caused by land clearing and burning and by emission from motor vehicle exhausts. Most carbon dioxide emissions derive from industrial processes in developed countries, such as in the United States and in Europe. However, carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries are rising. In this century, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to double and they are expected to continue to rise and cause problems after that.

When fossil fuels are burned to produce energy the carbon stored in them is emitted almost entirely as CO2. The main fossil fuels burned by humans are petroleum (oil), natural gas and coal. CO2 is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation, industrial uses, transportation, as well as in homes and commercial buildings. In 2006, petroleum supplied the largest share of domestic energy demands, accounting for an average of 47 percent of total fossil-fuel-based energy consumption in 2006. Coal and natural gas followed in order of importance, accounting for 27 and 26 percent of total fossil fuel consumption, respectively. The figure below displays emissions for each of these sectors, by fuel type in 2006.


The first person who predicted that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other burning processes would cause global warming was Svante Arrhenius, who published the paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" in 1896. However, it wasn’t until the 1930’s that it was confirmed that atmospheric carbon dioxide was actually increasing. In the late 1950s when highly accurate measurement techniques were developed, even more confirmation was found. By the 1990s, the global warming theory was widely accepted, although not by everyone. Whether global warming is truly caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is still debated.

The University of Chicago study is based on 24,519 measurements of ocean pH spanning eight years, which represents the first detailed dataset on variations of coastal pH at a temperate latitude, where the world's most productive fisheries live.

"Of the variables the study examined that are linked to changes in ocean acidity, only atmospheric carbon dioxide exhibited a corresponding steady change," said J. Timothy Wootton, the lead author of the study and Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.

"The acidity increased more than 10 times faster than had been predicted by climate change models and other studies," Wootton said.

"This increase will have a severe impact on marine food webs and suggests that ocean acidification may be a more urgent issue than previously thought, at least in some areas of the ocean," he added.

"Many sea creatures have shells or skeletons made of calcium carbonate, which the acid can dissolve," said Catherine Pfister, associate professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and a co-author of the study.

Climate alarmists are striving to convince us that we have a moral responsibility -- if not a religious duty -- to do all in our power to reduce our CO2 emissions and thereby "save the planet" from a catastrophic warming that they claim will otherwise lead to the extinctions of millions of species of plants and animals. If this unfortunate fate would indeed result from continued "business as usual" anthropogenic CO2 emissions, their "proselytizing" on this issue would be justified. But what if they are wrong? And, what if their policy prescriptions actually cause the very catastrophe they claim they will cure?

Only you can decide for yourself your position on this debate. But before you make that decision, please gather the facts and don’t bury your head in the sand and think someone else will take care of it. We are all contributing to the problem and will take all of us to do something to change it.

Whether you choose to follow the science or not, there is definitely a correlation between the increase of carbon dioxide and the warming of our planet. You cannot ask for more clearly defined proof than this.

Further reading:
CO2 Science
NASA maps shed light on Carbon Dioxide’s Global Nature
Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Ocean’s Carbon Balance
What is the Carbon Cycle?

Vaporizing Garbage into Gas

Every year so much garbage ends up in America’s landfills that we are becoming the Saudi Arabia of trash. These dumps emit more of the greenhouse gas methane than any other human-related source. The Atlanta-based company Geoplasma has created an innovative method of using plasma technology to turn rotting rubbish into usable power for up to 50,000 homes and at the same time reduce the amount of methane into the atmosphere.

Engineers have developed an efficient torch for blasting garbage with a stream of superheated gas, known as plasma. When trash is dropped into a chamber and heated to 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, its organic components—food, fluids, paper—vaporize into a hot, pressurized gas, which turns a turbine to generate electricity. Steam, a by-product, can generate more. Inorganic refuse such as metals condense at the bottom and can be used in roadbeds and heavy construction.

Several small plasma plants exist around the world for industrial processes, but Geoplasma is constructing the first U.S. plasma refuse plant in St. Lucie County, Florida. The plant is scheduled to go online by 2011; it will process 1,500 tons of garbage a day, sending 60 megawatts of electricity to the power grid (after using some to power itself).

Emissions are far lower than in standard incineration, and the process reduces landfill volume and methane release. Power prices are projected to be on par with electricity from natural gas. The difference, says Ron Roberts, St. Lucie County’s assistant director of solid waste, is that “you’re getting rid of a problem and making it a positive.

Photo Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Can you say Disingenuous?Can you say Disingenuous? Or Insincere, snow-job, sham, hypocrite?

George W. Bush, environmentalist. Sort of leaves a foul taste on a truthful tongue.

European leaders, American governors, corporate executives, evangelical preachers, key lawmakers and environmentalists have been pressing Bush to lead what they see as a bid to save the planet for years.

And now that he is about to leave the White House he decides he wants to be remembered as an environmentalist.

As if this will counter seven years of wasteful environmentally unfriendly policy and practices.

He has refused to believe global warming is a serious threat and actively went about disregarding the Kyoto Protocol.

He considered climate change as nothing more than leftist political agenda. He disregarded scientific finds and even went so far as to have scientific reports re-written or stricken from review because they didn’t fit with his personal belief.

And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.

His negotiators infuriated counterparts at this month's talks in Bali by resisting a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. And just hours after Bush signed a basically useless energy bill, the administration invalidated an effort by California and 17 other states to impose tougher tailpipe emission rules, hiding behind the excuse that it makes more sense to have a single national policy, which we know will never be drafted mush less passed.

And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.

This is nothing more than another paint job, another imagined feather in his cap for another self-imagined “job well done”.

Of course, any policy he will try to get passed involving cutting gasoline consumption and greenhouse gases will be just drastic enough so that they wont pass and then he can say he tried but congress was against him.

This sudden show of consciousness is his top advisors focusing on reformulating his legacy and he isn’t fooling anyone except his own lapdogs.

Carbon Capture Sequestration is Needed Soon

The world’s population continues to grow and along with it so grows our dependence on electricity. The world is not adopting alternative and renewable fuel sources such as solar, wind, wave, etc quickly enough, so plans are being drawn up to build new coal-fired power plants around the world.

E.on, the German energy giant based in Düsseldorf, Germany, wants to build a new coal plant at Kingsnorth in Kent, England. Protesters and scientists want to stop the plan from going forward unless it is linked to a carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility which would store its emissions underground. The proposed plant has no CCS plans for Kingsnorth and so its CO2 emissions would vent into the atmosphere. Protesters will not be able to stop the proposed construction of the plant and an E.on company spokesman said they have obtained injunctions to give police more powers to arrest protesters.

With the threat of violence between environmentalists and power plant owners heading towards the boiling point, CCS research needs to be finalized soon.

E.on currently has three new pilot projects to develop CO2 capture technology in cooperation with other companies based in Canada, U.S. and Japan. The three test plants will all be built in Germany. The three projects join four existing projects that E.on is pursuing together with Alstom, Hitachi Power Europe, Siemens and TNO.

The purpose behind cooperating with so many different companies is to test the capture mechanisms with several plant construction methods.

Germany appears to be taking their role in this potentially lucrative field very seriously. Just how serious is England in its quest to be one of the world’s leaders in carbon capture technology? Despite its promise of ‘urgent detailed implementation plan’s for carbon capture nearly five years ago, it is still only intending to help fund one small-scale project which should be operational by 2014. Companies taking part in the competition to build this demonstration plant are not even sure how much money they will receive.

This month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency only just began working on the regulatory framework for this potential weapon against climate change. Estimates suggest there is enough geologic space in the U.S. to store more than 3,000 gigatons of CO2, enough to store emissions from nearly 1,000 coal-fired power plants for a millennium. CCS, however, is in its infancy and not practiced on a broad scale in the U.S. but actual production needs to take place in order to keep up with Germany.

The European Union is testing several projects and on Wednesday gave Norway additional funds for an experimental CCS project at a gas-fired power plant. The Alberta government in Canada said last week it will spend $2 billion on major CCS projects.

Other countries pursuing CCS include Australia and Japan. By 2012, the global CCS market could top $236 billion.

With coal providing 25% of global primary energy needs and generating 40% of the world’s electricity, as well as being one of the leading contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, there is doubt that coal will be replaced by alternative energy sources any time soon. This is manly due to the cheaper cost of burning coal versus oil or natural gas.

Research into CCS is urgently needed in order to keep up with the inevitable rising trend in building new coal-fired power plants. And it appears we are on the right track, but it is going to take at least another five to ten years before we begin seeing clearer skies around these mammoth polluters. Whether we will see CCS come to fruition in time to be our saving grace from choking out the planet remains to be seen. But with Germany taking the lead in the race we will know the answer sooner than we would from these other countries.

Further reading:
World Resources Institute
Science Daily

Listen to the Children

Too often we adults shun advice from children as too naïve and not worth our time to listen to.

Here is a twelve-year-old who has something meaningful and worthwhile to say and actually says it better than most adults. She addressed the United Nations meeting in Brazil with an elegance and style far beyond her years.

Please, take the time to listen, it is only a five minute segment of her speech but in that short time she paints reality far more succinctly than any adult I know ever has.

From her we have so much to learn and just maybe we can learn to share what we have with those who have nothing.

You say you want a Revolution

Let’s clean up our land, Let’s clean up our air, Let’s clean up our water. Very lofty goals. Everyone should be involved. But what is it going to cost? Let’s face it, cost is the only factor that either prohibits us or causes us to do anything.

According to a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency, the cost will be approximately $45 trillion over the next several decades.

This is the price tag placed on the necessary "energy revolution" that will be needed to greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth. More from the report: the world needs to build 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power, in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.

Now that we have a bottom line figure and a game plan we can get started, right?

Trying to get the world’s population to agree on what is necessary is not feasible. “We require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels. This is assuming that greenhouse gases (and therefore mankind) is the main causal factor of global warming. Other scientists say the increase in global temperature is a natural phenomena and cannot be avoided.

Even if the climate change is a natural occurrence, not induced by mankind, we will all benefit from participating in a revolution of such a grand scale.

We have the technology in place right now to lessen our dependence on fossil fuel. Solar technology, wind technology and even nuclear technology, all, if allowed to be put into place, will greatly help alleviate our dependence on fossil fuel which would result in drastic decreases in greenhouse gas emissions..

Why aren’t we using them? Why are we stubbornly holding on to old ways of heating and cooling our homes? Money.

It is expensive to convert our traditional methods of heating and air conditioning to less eco-damaging methods.

Even if every government on this planet would miraculously agree on a method of such a large transition, coming to a decision on who would bear the cost would require a revolution in thinking. This financial investment is more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy, 1.1% of the world’s gross domestic product.

"Carbon capture and storage" technology, allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground, is needed now. This would only be an initial first phase. This plan can easily be seen as necessary in order to prevent future contamination of our atmosphere while developing technology to prevent contamination in the first place. Sort of like stopping the leak in the bucket until we build a better bucket.

That better bucket will need to come in the form of solar, wind and nuclear power plants. The world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity — the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy — in the transport sector.

This is a huge undertaking. We can’t get politicians to agree on how to best spend our tax dollars to benefit tax payers with what is left over after they distribute their windfall to special interest groups, how are we ever going to get them to think about cleaning up the environment? If we follow the established method of relying on politicians to pay for this revolution, this price tag is going to be much greater than $45 trillion.

I think we can all agree that we are on a dangerous course regardless of what is causing global warming. Our whole ideology on how we use energy to support our lifestyles needs to be re-examined. Kate of Hills and Plains Seedsavers directed my attention to a wonderful animation that so marvelously portrays mankind’s existence that I just have to share it here. It is entitled Carbon Weevils.

Our current lifestyles are not sustainable enough to promote the healthy life we all want. Greenhouse gases are a major contributing factor to rising hospital visits which in turn increases health costs and reduces quality of life. Rising demand for fossil fuel increases the price of that fossil fuel. The increasing number of food recalls is testament that mankind cannot maintain a safe food supply due to the sheer number of people to be fed. The number of starving people is rising due in part to converting food crops into fuel crops. Even though the world produces enough food to feed everyone, if it isn’t profitable to do so we won’t. Corporations will only participate if it is in their best financial interest.

We simply cannot continue on this path. Getting the world to act together in the best interest of each and every one of us will indeed require a revolution.

Smarter Electrical Grid Could Save Us Money and Energy

We have heard of smart appliances - fine tuned washers, dryers, water heaters and refrigerators – but what about a smart electrical grid?

These appliances are outfitted with computer chips to help prevent the colossal power failures (brown outs) that plunged large areas of the U.S. into darkness in 2003 and 1996. The chips sense when the electrical transmission system is stressed and partially turn themselves off to save kilowatts. Using these chips in a clothes dryer, traditionally the largest user of residential electrical energy, can turn off the heating element until the grid restabilizes.

The electric grid, a vast network of transmission lines that carries energy from power plants to your home, wasn’t designed to anything more than what it does. We flip a switch or plug something in and generally get as much power as we're willing to pay for. But with the ever increasing demand for more power plants and the growing environmental consequences of providing that power coupled with the rising costs in generating electrical energy this system is unsustainable. As a result, power providers and technology companies are making the electric grid smarter.

In order to convert this passive supplier of electricity into a means of telling us, in our homes, when power demand is high, power companies are testing methods to coax users to reduce their demand during peak periods. One method for cutting back on electrical use is through smart appliances, another is by a glowing amber dot on a light switch that will blink to ask you to turn that switch off.

Smart-grid technologies have gotten small tests throughout North America, as utilities and regulators scout how to coax people to reduce their demand for power. The utility Xcel Energy plans to soon begin a $100 million smart grid project reaching 100,000 homes in Boulder, Colo.

In a separate test that began last September in Milton, situated on the western edge of the Greater Toronto area, 200 test participants are given the ability to use their personal computers to visit an online control panel that configures the home's energy consumption. Each subject chooses the temperature and which lights should be on or off at certain times of the day. Rules can be set for different kinds of days, so the house might be warmer and darker on summer weekdays when the family is out.

The family can override those changes manually, whether it's by turning on the porch light or raising the thermostat to ward off a Canadian chill. But the system guards against waste. If midnight comes and no one has remembered to lower the thermostat and turn off the porch light, those steps just happen.

These little tweaks add up nicely for another person testing the Milton system, Marian Rakusan. He's saved at least $300 on utility bills since the program began.

Programmable thermostats and other "smart home" controls have allowed people control their energy use for some time now. The big change here is the combination of these controls with that blinking amber light on the switch -- where the grid talks back.

Milton's local gas and electricity retailer, Direct Energy, will set those amber dots blinking in an emergency. It might happen a few times in a summer month. Maybe there will be congestion in Ontario's overtaxed transmission network. Perhaps a power plant will be down for maintenance. Or the number of air conditioners in use will overwhelm electric capacity.

If users have not responded quickly enough during times of grid-stress or their individual settings demand that the power company step in then Direct Energy will be able to remotely enforce conservation, should it become necessary. It can raise the set temperature in a participant's home by 2 degrees Celsius in the summer (nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit), reducing its air conditioning load. The company also has permission to shut off the testers' water heaters and electric pool pumps for four hours at a time during these power emergencies.

Most people prefer this reach of the power company into their homes as opposed to having rolling black-outs. California officials recently had to back away from a proposal to require remote-controlled thermostats in new buildings.

An alternative to the test in Milton is to provide powerful economic incentives to force conservation.

An advanced notion of this will be tested this summer in 1,100 homes served by Baltimore Gas & Electric. Pricing plans will vary, but generally the households will pay the cheapest, "off-peak" rates most of the time. Some testers will pay higher rates every weekday afternoon. And all of them will be subject to "critical peak" periods of even higher charges, declared on as many as 12 weekday afternoons with stress on the grid. The Maryland utility will have its own version of Milton's amber dots. Most of the homes will get 3-inch-high orbs that will glow different colors to indicate the price of electricity: red instead of their usual green, for example, during critical peak periods.

By far the best way to save energy consumption is to have the whole system automatically adjust itself for the highs and lows of electrical use. Controllers are being tested for this purpose. A Demand Controller is a microcomputer load control system that monitors the amount of energy being used in your home and can turn off selected devices until power consumption has lessened. Maximum tolerable loads can be set by the home owner with the highest-conservation setting for dishwashers to start only when electricity prices are at their lowest, or when wind power has kicked on. This can save the home owner 20% to 70% off their energy bill.

Electricity use per home has risen 23% from 1981 to 2001, according to the Department of Energy. Electronics and appliances, and our decreasing tolerance for sweating through the summers are mainly to blame for this increase. The Census Bureau says 46% of single-family homes completed in the U.S. in 1975 had air conditioning. By 2006 it was 89%.

Raw materials that fuel power plants are soaring in price and being eyed more skeptically by regulators concerned about air quality and greenhouse gases. We simply cannot continue to build more coal plants even if they do claim to be cleaner burning. More efficient use of what we already have can be the better answer. A mere 5% improvement in U.S. electric efficiency would prevent 90 large coal-fired power plants from having to be built over the next 20 years, according to Jon Wellinghoff, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In some states, residents can get rebates if they let the utility trigger radio transmitters on their air conditioners that cycle the chillers off for a few minutes in strained summer hours.

Companies such as EnerNOC have built software and sensor networks that can remotely dim lights or raise refrigerator temperatures inside businesses, in an instant. For homes, upgraded electric meters can offer near-real-time feedback on energy use. And new generations of appliances and thermostats can coordinate with each other and electric meters over in-home wireless networks.

Whatever smart system is adopted, it is sure to be an improvement for both the environment and the home owner.

It Is Dangerous to Take Gifts From Politicians

Senator John McCain has proposed a gas-tax-holiday, a ‘gift’ if you will. Every year, just before the summer driving season, someone in congress proposes just such a break to ease our economic woes. Has it ever happened? No. Will it happen this time? Let’s hope not.

The amount of federal tax collected on a gallon of gasoline is 18.4 cents, roughly 5% of the current average price of $3.38/gallon. This would save the average commuter between $3 and $4 per tank. If the average commuter fills their tank once a week, then by the end of this three month no-tax period, he/she could conceivably save $36 to $48 which is truly a paltry sum.

During that time, the federal government would lose $9 billion and more than 300,000 jobs. The federal Highway Trust Fund, which is supported by this tax, is already facing a $3.4 billion shortfall to finance much needed infrastructure repairs nationwide. The federal transportation department says every $1 billion in highway spending creates 34,779 jobs. Sure, it would help companies like FedEx and UPS who are struggling to stay profitable due to high gas prices, but saving some jobs only to lose others is not a very responsible economic policy.

McCain plans to cover this loss with money from the general fund which would add to the deficit. Also, a very stupid and short-sighted idea. It saddens me that this is the best that a presidential candidate can come up with. And of course, since this proposal is outright political pandering for votes, Senator Hillary Clinton jumped right on it. America is in for more serious trouble.

There are several major drawbacks to this ridiculous proposal. First, by making gasoline cheaper during the busiest driving time of the year consumers will only use more of it. This not only quickens our pace towards the bottom of the trough but it would have immediate detrimental financial and environmental effects by increasing the price of a gallon of gas, increasing the amount of CO2 emissions (which contradicts Senator McCain’s stated goal of reducing CO2 emissions) and increasing the profit to oil producers.

Does this still sound like a ‘gift’?

“You don’t want to stimulate consumption,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, interviewed by the New York Times. “The signal you want to send is the opposite one. Politicians should say that conservation is where people’s mindset ought to be.”

Mr. Goldstein said that instead of freezing the federal tax, the government should help lower-income populations pay for gasoline. It would be cheaper and benefit those households that need it most.

This guys shows much more leadership quality than any candidate we are currently forced to deal with.

The United States has the lowest gasoline taxes among industrialized countries. It also has the highest gasoline consumption level in the world, nearly 25% of all gasoline consumption is by Americans. Energy experts say the two are related. Raising the tax on a gallon of gas would slow down its consumption and finally force us to think about our driving habits and force us to be more energy conscious.

Haven’t we learned yet about what they say about accepting gifts from politicians? We always pay more for it in the long run.

Biofuel Update: ALGAE

One of the latest attempts at creating a biofuel source has been with algae. Algae are among the fastest growing plants in the world, and about 50 percent of their weight is oil. That lipid oil can be used to make biodiesel for cars, trucks, and airplanes.

A company in Texas, Valcent Products, has created an algae greenhouse to harvest this green fuel that many believe will help ease our dependence on fossil fuel.

Instead of growing algae in ponds, Vlacent uses a closed loop bioreactor system that can produce algae over an extended period. Using long rows of moving plastics bags exposes a larger surface area to the suns rays thereby growing more algae in less space. The system is expected to produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans.

More than one type of algae

There are currently 65,000 known algae species, with perhaps hundreds of thousands more still to be identified and researchers are convinced they will be able to target the exact species of algae most perfectly suited to whatever end product is desired. One species may be best suited for jet fuel, while the oil content of another may be more efficient for truck diesel.

Algae as a food source

Seaweeds, e.g., the kelps (kombu) and the red algae Porphyra (nori), have long been used as a source of food, especially in Asia. Both cultivated and naturally growing seaweeds have been harvested in the Pacific Basin for hundreds of years. Kelp are also much used as fertilizer, and kelp ash is used industrially for its potassium and sodium salts. Other useful algae products are agar and carrageen, which is used as a stabilizer in foods, cosmetics, and paints.

Another commercial use is as a health food drink, usually sold as "Spirulina" which claims to increase natural cancer fighting substances in the body.

Algae as a filtering agent

Locating algae facilities next to carbon producing power plants, or manufacturing plants could sequester the C02 they create and use those emissions to help grow the algae, which need the C02 for photosynthesis. An bioreactor built in just the right way can have the added benefit of preventing carbon dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, from entering the atmosphere.

A Sonoma State University biology professor and his graduate student have teamed up with the City of Santa Rosa to investigate the potential use of algae to remove excess nutrients and other contaminants from municipal wastewater effluent.

Algae is considered a better alternative to using corn and soybeans as a biofuel due to three factors, one: algae generates more fuel using less acreage, two: the diversion of corn and soybean from food to biofuel use increases the cost of food products, and three: the high agricultural use of nitrogen based fertilizers for corn and soybeans contaminates the water table and eventually runs off into the oceans adding to the already huge Dead Zone.

A decade ago, the U.S. Department of Energy said that after 18 years of study algae oil could never compete economically with fossil fuels. But that was when the price of oil was about $20. With the cost of a barrel of oil over $100 I think its high time we use plants like algae and switchgrass for biofuel sources and keep food crops out of the gas tank.

Kansas strikes down another pollution producer

Is this state legislature for real? With all the proof of global warming landing like a brick wall squarely on their heads, the Kansas legislature has the temerity to introduce a bill that would not only allow the spewing of 11 million more tons of greenhouse gas into our atmosphere, they also had written in the bill excusing energy producers from adhering to the state’s stricter-than-the-EPA-standards of pollution.

Sunflower Electric power Corp tried twice in the last year to obtain approval to add two 700 –megawatt units at a facility in western Kansas. I can’t believe anyone is still pursuing this outdated filthy form of power generation. It is morally irresponsible to actually want to add pollution to our atmosphere. Sunflower president Earl Watkins had the nerve to threaten Kansas families with higher electric rates saying that if the bill did not pass it would “punish our Kansas workers and industries”.

Just who does this guy think he is fooling? Pollution to our bodies and our planet is a far greater threat than the increase in home and business utility rates that we have come to expect almost annually anyway.

"Of all the duties and responsibilities entrusted to me as governor, none is greater than my obligation to protect the health and well-being of the people of Kansas," Governor Sebelius said in her veto message.

Thank-you governor for showing some common sense against outdated dirty energy producing power plants and legislators who cannot see past the dollar signs being waved in front of them.

Sources: Kansas City Star, Reuters, Associated Press

Building for energy efficiency

The 10^th Biennial Conference on Business and the Environment was held in Vancouver, British Columbia this past week involving Canada, the U.S. and Mexico concerning the construction of residential and commercial buildings.

A report issued by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation at that conference stated that “green” construction could cut North America’s climate-warming emissions faster and more cheaply than any other environmental measure.

Traditional building techniques have resulted in North America’s buildings releasing more than 2,200 megatons per year. This represents 35% of the continents total greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If the construction industry would take advantage of currently available and emerging energy-saving technologies this figure would be reduced by 1,700 megaton emissions in 2030! A cut of this size would nearly equal the CO2 emitted by the entire U.S. transportation sector in 2000.

Taking into account the life-expectancy of a building, residential or commercial, we would be taking a huge step toward preventing a very large chunk of future greenhouse gas emissions.

We already know it works. Newly built green buildings routinely reduce energy usage by 30-50% over conventional buildings, so these figures are not just ‘blue-sky’ theory. The most efficient buildings perform more than 70% better than conventional properties.

Municipalities around the world are getting the message and taking steps to ease the transition toward a more responsible habitation with our environment.

European Union leaders have agreed to commit to legislation setting firm targets for a 20% reduction on CO2 emissions before 2020. They have also agreed to reduce energy imports, liberalize internal energy markets to increase competition, reduce taxes on environmentally friendly products, and to achieve world leadership in renewable energy technologies.

Kate from Hills and Plains Seedsavers informed me recently that her home town of Adelaide in South Australia, has passed an ordinance that requires all new construction have rain water collection systems built into the home. Yeah! Great Idea! How about going a bit further and requiring all new buildings, residential as well as commercials have solar power panels installed. A good point she brought up would be to have money collected on your electricity bill go towards having them installed on every existing and new homes.

Back in the U.S., ten states have been identified as the best for solar power, but its not based solely on number of sunny days. The criteria for getting on this list is rebate programs, loans, tax exemptions, regulatory policies, and strong support for setting renewable energy usage targets.

A number of cities around the country, including San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and Scottsdale, Arizona, are leading the way with laws that require new public buildings to be green. So far, 54 cities and 23 federal agencies have adopted LEED standards for buildings, says Bill Browning, senior fellow for Rocky Mountain Institute and co-author of Green Development: Integrating Ecology and Real Estate. An industry has blossomed around the concept. At least 12,000 people, a record, attended the GreenBuild International Conference and Expo in Denver last November.

Clean Energy States Alliance tells us that more states are turning toward solar thermal heat and hot water heating, because of their efficiency and affordability, as well as their stable technology, and focusing on affordable housing to expand the market for solar.

The marketplace is always ready to supply us with what we need.

There are several companies that are currently making roofing shingles out of solar panel material. This one comes from OkSolar. Another step in the right direction.

Open Energy Corp has innovated the use of solar panels by embedding its “SolarSave” panels onto 4-foot-long plates that roofers can attach to wood, without needing an electrician which in turns can minimize labor costs.

Why aren’t we mandating these types of forward thinking improvements into new construction? Just adding better insulation and sealing cracks around windows and doors isn’t cutting it anymore. Consumers are a pretty savvy bunch. We know these products are out there. We know prices are coming down because of the proliferation of the technology. We also know that by changing the way in which buildings are currently being constructed we can save not only future money in lowered HVAC bills but cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide our buildings put into our atmosphere.

So what’s the hold up?

Green construction often adds less than one percent to the cost of a conventional building, but the payoffs can include energy costs cut by one-third.

Residential builders are slow to catch on to the trend, as they tend to look at what sold yesterday when deciding what to build today. Homebuilders mostly use the same means, methods and materials used 30 years ago. Architects and designers are rarely employed for homebuilding, and most would eagerly jump at the chance to design an energy efficient building. Small companies build most houses and they can’t afford architects, so it’ll take a while for the green trend to filter down.

This is a radical change to traditional building practices so naturally resistance is to be expected. People want energy efficiency but are not willing to pay for customized homes. What we need are a few brave small building companies to build these ‘customized’ homes in hopes that they will become the norm. This will lead the way to more companies selling this type of home and before too long everyone will be building them.

Another problem is the trend towards over-sized houses some of them outfitted with a full-body shower spraying more than 20 gallons of water per minute—enough to fill an entire bathtub in one minute. This type of extravagance should be taxed heavily to make the purchase of them less attractive, in my opinion. “Every three people putting in these shower systems negates the efforts of 100 people putting in efficient products,” wrote Alex Wilson, president of Vermont-based BuildingGreen, executive editor of Environmental Building News and author of Your Green Home. Federal regulations require low-flow, 2.5-gallon-a-minute showerheads. Yet these new multiple-head systems spray 10 times as much or more, “a small portion of which may briefly contact your body,” Wilson wrote, “en route from your water heater to your sewer line.”

“You can build a pretty mediocre house from an energy standpoint at 1,200 square feet and it will probably use a lot less energy than a state-of-art green home that is 3,500 square feet. And that’s a factor we need to be conscious of,” Wilson says.

Okay, so it’s clear that the green building movement is growing and it’s equally clear that not everybody cares about the environment, but those of us who do should be able to do something about it without it financially ruining us. Obstacles remain but it is vital to our health as well as the health of the planet that we not be discouraged. Toronto-based designer Bruce Mau, keynote speaker at the Building Energy ‘05 conference in Boston said “Now that modern technology has put us in a position that we can do anything, what will we do?”

I’m dreaming of alternative energy

I’m dreaming of a future with alternative energy. Residences with wind and solar devices that provide all of their energy needs. Vast fields of switchgrass and other crops grown for ethanol production that effectively cut our dependence on foreign oil.

Decreased destruction to our environment due to decreased need to search for more oil in our national parks and reserves.

OPEC shrinking in world importance because of a lesser demand for their natural resources. Wars becoming a less viable option because we don’t need to covet our neighbors oil resources.

Maybe this is only a dream but there is no denying it is one worth struggling for. And we can make it happen. If only we were motivated enough to commit to it. Our lack of motivation to implement alternative energy policies has become very costly.

For instance, in our rush to secure continued access to global oil reserves we are spending billions on the military to that end. Money that would be better spent for research of alternative energy sources. While we are playing this hand, other countries, such as France and Germany, have already developed alternative energy policies and have decreased their dependence on oil rich countries. This is turn increases the cost of oil to America, because of the rule of supply and demand. OPEC wants to keep their revenue stream fat and if other countries don’t buy from them then the countries that do have to take up the slack, meaning higher cost to us.

The cost of a barrel of oil is far higher than OPEC’s asking price. The true cost is in its kilowatt/hour ratio. Billions are spent each year in securing of oil, in searching for oil, in the mobilization of our military to assure its continued flow to the U.S. The value of American soldiers lives has no price tag but must be included in the cost of our dependence on oil to squander on oversized SUV’s and transportation of products that consumers can live without.

The U.S. has the a more highly evolved, technologically advanced military than anyone else but we are being left behind in the race toward technological developments of more efficient renewable energy systems. This, to me, is a gravely missed opportunity that will eventually cost us dearly.

Alternative energy will greatly reduce our dependence on the natural resources of other countries. This alone would do more to ease political tensions than any diplomat could ever hope for. It will also reduce the need for such a large military.

To believe in the need for reduced greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprints to have a healthier existence is a no-brainer. Yet we are convinced that the cost of alternative energy is too prohibitive. How do these costs compare to the number of deaths from smog-related heart attacks and lung cancer, asthma suffering, costs to clean the air we breathe, costs to clean up the huge stretches of shoreline every time a monstrous oil tanker breaks apart, cost to the environment from searching for a few barrels of oil in places like the Alaska wildlife reserve and Colorado’s national parks or the continued removal of coal by strip-mining the West Virginia landscape. The loss of lives and the continued destruction of pristine and beautiful places such as these is unforgivable when we have valid alternatives.

To make the change from what we have always done to a healthier and less expensive existence takes a leap of faith.

It is human nature to take the easy approach to what we do. Right now it is easier to just plug into the grid because it is already there. We only seem to be motivated to implement an alternative when what we have is taken away from us. Forward thinking people see that we will someday be without fossil fuels, someday our ability to create electricity from water will have diminished due to the increasing demand of an ever increasing population.

We are a part of this ecological system, we do not have to be a slave to it.

The state of California and Texas have incorporated wind energy into their energy programs. Other states such as Massachusetts have been stymied by Senators like Ted Kennedy, who claims wind turbines are great but are unsightly and a threat to birds. This idiotic statement illustrates our greatest problem with moving forward with alternative energy. We need to get people like this and others who are in big oils pockets, out of congress and replace them with people of foresight, people who place the threat against our soldiers lives and the environment above the threat to a few birds.

Replacing ‘old school’ politicians is only part of it. Consumers need to do their part by demanding the market supply alternative energy appliances.

Companies are developing small residential wind turbines and cheap portable solar panels.

Akeena Solar signs manufacturing partnership with Kyocera

Stormblade: the first truly quiet residential wind turbine

Residential solar kits are available

Governments are beginning to respond as well.

South Australia, through new solar feed-in laws, will pay householders and small energy consumers using solar panels twice the value of electricity they put into the electricity grid.

Arizona lawmakers are pushing legislation to create tax breaks for solar energy providers and to attract solar energy use for homeowners.

Maybe my dream for alternative energy isn’t very far off after all.

California responds to the EPA

(Follow-up to posting Dec 20, 2007 entitled “Come back Mr. Johnson”.)

On December 19, 2007 the EPA told California, and twelve other states, they could not enact their own legislation to combat greenhouse gas limits on cars, trucks and SUVs. The EPA said in doing so, that states have no business setting emission standards.

California has always had stricter standards for automobile emissions and the EPA has not limited their ability to enforce these laws until now.

Since that decision, four other states have decided to join California in its effort to take a lead role in cleaning up the air in their states.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson is apparently acting alone in this matter and does not have any legal footing to back his decision. But illegality has never slowed down George W Bush and his cronies.

"There's absolutely no justification for the administrator's action," Attorney General Jerry Brown said Wednesday. "It's illegal. It's unconscionable and a gross dereliction of duty."

The federal government is moving forward with a national solution and dismissed California's arguments that it faced unique threats from climate change. I cannot agree that California faces ‘unique’ threats from climate change because this climate threat is affecting the entire world.

There is no plausible reason why any state cannot enact its own standards separate and distinct from what the federal government wants unless the automobile industry is pressuring the federal government to halt it. A secondary layer of legislation against air pollution only ensures we clean up our air in a more timely fashion then waiting for the federal government.

The half-assed, ineffective energy legislation signed by President Bush last month will raise fuel economy standards nationwide to an average of 35 mpg by 2020. This is playing too closely to automobile manufacturer and oil industry desires to be of any use toward cleaning up our air. Also it allows foreign automakers to increase their far more fuel efficient cars to be sold here. On the plus side, this poor attempt at emissions control will help generate more interest in solar and hydrogen powered vehicles.

Instead of fighting the states, the federal EPA should work with them to see if the states’ plans are better for the nation than what the EPA can come up with.

Mr. Johnson is turning this into a power play and trying to place himself as the top dog. This kind of childish behavior is unwarranted given the fact that at least 20 states have come forward demanding strict controls on our automobile emissions levels.

The 2004 California law is tougher than the new national standard. It requires the auto industry to cut emissions by one-third in new vehicles by 2016 or reach an average of 36.8 mpg. Which, in my opinion, is still not enough.

The twelve other states that have adopted the California emissions standards are — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

The governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah have said they plan to adopt them and Iowa is considering adoption.

Mr. Johnson, I think the states have spoken loudly and in a clear enough manner that leaves no room for misinterpretation that demands you step up and make these standards tougher.

California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement, "(EPA officials) are ignoring the will of millions of people who want their government to take action in the fight against global warming, that's why, at the very first legal opportunity, we're suing to reverse the U.S. EPA's wrong decision."

"Today, there is simply no environmental issue more compelling, or extraordinary, than the increasing threat of climate change," New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said in a statement. "Greenhouse gas emission standards for cars are a logical and necessary step to effectively combat global warming."

Automakers argue that they would have to be forced to reduce their selection of vehicles and raise prices in the states that adopted California's standards. Does anyone really need the so called selection of vehicles that comes out of Detroit? These cars all pretty much look alike and they are all built on the same basic frame anyway so what would we be giving up? As far as higher prices go, this argument simply does not stand up. Prices will already go higher to meet the federal governments lame standards so to say they will go higher because of California’s standards is simply wrong. It has already been shown that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for better mileage and lower emissions. Therefore the automakers arguments are flawed and manufactured to make themselves appear to be victims. Grow up Detroit and get with the program.

The EPA is attempting to kill a legal, viable policy tailored to help California deal with projected consequences of global climate change. Rising seas could erode our nation’s coastline and top its levees, while warming temperatures are expected to reduce mountain snowpacks, leading to a potential water crisis. But Detroit places its profit margin worries above the collective nation’s need to combat the more important, very real threat created by the products it markets to us. Forgive me, but it is very hard to find any sympathy for U.S. automakers. They have had many years and many missed opportunities to be more competitive with foreign automakers to keep our loyalty. Now they are crying when it comes time to face the music.

It is time to make up with Mother Nature

The latest news from the Bali climate conference is that no real news at all.

The UN chief continues to urge the U.S. to be more skeptical. The final conclusion from the conference this week will include a call for industrialized countries to consider cutting emissions blamed for rising temperature by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020.

The United State, of course, is refusing to accept such guidelines, thereby continuing to ignore the rapid rate of ice cap melting in the Arctic.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says negotiations with the U.S. will have to be made down the road. This is unacceptable. Scientist have lately discovered that the Arctic ice cap will disappear by the end of 2012. this means that road to negotiation will soon be flooded. We do not have the luxury of time to delay this negotiation.

New technologies are emerging that could slow global warming but it won’t happen in time. Demand for oil must be lessened, low mileage, gas guzzling automobiles ‘must’ become a thing of the past, driving habits need to be severely curtailed, oil companies need to place their profits in alternative energy and stop searching for new oil.

Scientific predictions of rising seas, worsening droughts and famines, and melting ice sheets are real. These predictions are not made lightly. Refusal to heed these warning signs all indicate that the world’s coastlines will drastically change in the very near future.

Deep cuts in emissions cannot be put on the back burner until it is ‘more convenient’ for the U.S. oil companies and their puppet politicians.

“The reality in this business is that once numbers appear in the text, it prejudges the outcome and will tend to drive the negotiations in one direction,” said Harlan Watson, a lead U.S. negotiator. This is absolute crap! This mouthpiece for the oil industry is a major stumbling block in moving forward with forcing America to change its environmentally damaging policies. Any negotiator worthy of the title knows that numbers need to be set in order to have something tangible to work with. He is simply stalling at the behest of oil companies and other puppet politicians.

Anyone with a clear, ethical conscience toward protecting our environment can enact environmental legislation without having to be told by the rest of world that we need to do it.

The U.S. and China, as the top emitters of greenhouse gases, needs to step up now and make the first cuts in emissions, help poorer countries develop in a more environmentally friendly way and provide the technological assistance to do so.

We are all in this together. The U.S. needs to abandon its notion that we are too big to answer to anyone. We answer to Mother Nature and she is not happy.