Global Warming and CO2 Emissions Blog

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from new cars sold in the EU-15 have decreased further. According to the European Commission's annual report on CO₂ emissions from new cars, published today, in 2004 average emissions were 12.4 %^[1] below 1995's level (in 2003 they had been 11.8% below 1995). The report welcomes this progress but underlines that the industry will need to make major additional efforts to meet its commitments to cut average CO₂ emissions to 140g/km by 2008/9, a reduction of around 25% from 1995 levels.

Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry Gunter Verheugen said: "Car manufacturers have made continuous and substantial progress since 1995. The situation is not satisfactory. I urge industry to step up their efforts. We expect that industry sticks to its commitments."

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas added: "To combat climate change and respect our Kyoto commitments we have to reduce CO2 emissions from transport - a sector whose emissions contribute significantly to overall emissions. I appreciate the efforts of some car manufacturers to market cars that emit less CO2. I urge the car industry to step up its efforts to meet the 140 g of CO2/km target under the voluntary agreement. This will be crucial to achieving the Community objective of 120 g of CO2/km by 2012 at the latest."

Commissioners Verheugen and Dimas underlined that if industry did not honour its commitments, the Commission would have to consider taking measures, including legislative ones, to ensure that the necessary CO₂ reductions were achieved.

The EU strategy to reduce CO₂ emissions from cars rests on three pillars. The most important of these consists of separate voluntary commitments by the European, Japanese and Korean car manufacturers' associations to reduce CO₂ emissions from their cars to an average of 140 g/km by 2008 (for European manufacturers) and 2009 (for Japanese and Korean producers). The other two pillars of the strategy are consumer information (chiefly through fuel efficiency labeling of cars) and fiscal measures to promote the most fuel-efficient cars.

The commitments by European, Japanese and Korean manufacturers are an important measure to help the EU-15 reach its Kyoto Protocol target of cutting emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gases to 8% below 1990 levels by 2012. Cars are responsible for more than 10% of EU CO₂ emissions.

Situation in 2004:

Since the start of the commitments in 1999 and 2000 ACEA and JAMA have achieved continuous progress in reducing CO₂ emissions, although less so in 2003 and 2004 than in previous years. KAMA achieved a very substantial reduction in 2004 which enabled it to respect the agreed interim target range.

Despite this progress, however, all three associations have to make considerable further efforts if they are to reach the 140g CO₂/km target by 2008/9. In the remaining years, until the deadline, annual reduction rates will need to reach 3.3% for ACEA and KAMA and 3.5% for JAMA.

The Commission is currently reviewing the strategy and the options available to further reduce CO₂ emissions from light-duty vehicles in the EU-25, subject to an impact assessment and taking into account the work of the CARS21 high-level group. The revised strategy will be based on an integrated approach to reduce CO₂ emissions from cars, involving various stakeholders and extending, amongst others, to car technology, fuels, infrastructure and driver behaviour. The Commission recently launched an online consultation (see link below) to seek the views of the public on measures to further improve cars' fuel efficiency and reduce their CO₂ emissions. A Communication to the European Parliament and Council on the outcome of this review will be presented in the second half of this year.

Background

Road transport generates more than one fifth of all CO₂ emissions in the EU, with passenger cars being responsible for more than half of these emissions. CO₂ emissions from road transport have risen by 22% since 1990, notably due to increases both in the number of cars on the roads as well as in the distances that are driven annually.

Further information is available at the following internet addresses:
Emissions from cars:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/co2/co2_home.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/automotive/pagesbackground/pollutant_emission/index.htm

Online consultation on CO₂ from cars:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/co2/co2_home.htm#review

---

^[1] Percentage based on rounded numbers.

^[5] Korea Automobile Manufacturers’ Association: Daewoo, Hyundai, Kia and Ssangyong.

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1134

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

This is the prepared text of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's speech on global warming, delivered Thursday evening to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to be here tonight to discuss global warming -- the greatest environmental challenge facing this planet. So let me get right to it.

The first seven months of this year were the warmest since climate record-keeping began in 1895. (National Climactic Data Center)

And based on nearly every scientific projection, it's only going to get warmer. The question is how warm?

If temperature increases are kept to 1 to 2 degrees, it is manageable. But if warming increases to 5 to 9 degrees or even more, the effects on our planet will be catastrophic. We must begin to take certain steps now.

So, each of us is confronted with a choice -- a choice that will impact not only our future, but the futures of our children and grandchildren.

Do we continue with a business-as-usual attitude? Or do we make the changes needed to prevent catastrophe?

How did we reach this point?

Quite simply, we are addicted to fossil fuels.

And it is the burning of these fuels – coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas and the resultant greenhouse gas emissions – that is the primary cause of global warming.

Carbon dioxide, the most plentiful of the greenhouse gases, is produced by power plants, cars, manufacturing, and residential and commercial buildings.

And here is the key: Carbon dioxide doesn't dissipate. It stays in the atmosphere for five decades or more – causing Earth's temperature to rise.

That means that the carbon dioxide produced in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s is still in the atmosphere today. And the carbon dioxide produced today will still be in the atmosphere in 2050 and beyond.

Many of the world's most preeminent scientists – including those at the University of California, the Scripps Institute, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – all predict serious consequences for our planet unless we make major changes in our consumption of energy and strongly move away from energy sources that produce global warming – namely carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.

They say that to stabilize the planet's climate by the end of the century, we need a 70 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Earth has already warmed 1 degree in the past century and we're seeing the dramatic effects:

* The 1990s were the hottest decade on record. * Glaciers are melting; coral reefs are dying; species are disappearing. * Extreme weather patterns have evolved – heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and floods – and they are occurring with greater frequency and greater intensity.

Global warming is also touching us closer to home:

* The Sierra snowpack is shrinking. * The scope and intensity of forest fires in the west is increasing. * And production is down at wineries and dairies as result of the recent heat wave.

Things will only get worse as temperatures rise. The question is how much will the increase be?

If temperatures increase by another 1 to 2 degrees over the next 50 years, we will see major -- but manageable -- shifts in the world around us:

* The Sierra-Nevada snowpack would shrink by 30 percent. * Sea levels would rise up to six inches. * Large wildfires would increase by 10 percent. * And electricity demand would increase by 3 percent. (California Climate Change Center)

These are significant changes – but it is possible to adapt to them.

But if nothing is done…if the Earth warms 5 degrees or more in the next 50 years, the face of our planet will change forever. According to scientific estimates:

* Three out of five species would become extinct. Oceans would rise. Flooding would occur. Hurricanes, tornadoes and weather would become more volatile than ever. Malaria would spread. * Here in California: Two-thirds of the Sierra snowpack would disappear -- equal to the water supply for the 16 million people in the LA basin. * Sea levels would rise more than 2 feet, leading to 100-year floods every 10 years. * Risk of catastrophic wildfire would more than double. * Energy demands would increase 10 to 20 percent. (California Climate Change Center)

We got a mild taste of that future in July. Here in the City, temperatures spiked to 97 degrees. And it was far worse in other areas of California. More than 160 people died. Death Valley temperatures soared to 126 degrees.

So, we're at a tipping point.

Refuse to act, or act too slowly, and humans will have caused the most sudden temperature shift in the history of the planet.

But, if we act soon and decisively, global warming can be limited to 1 to 2 degrees. This, I contend, should be our goal.

U.S. Responsibility

America emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, though we have only 4 percent of its population.

This makes the U.S. the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

Yet today, the federal government is doing nothing to stop global warming. We should be leading the charge.

Here in the United States, the two most significant pieces of the puzzle are:

* Transportation – cars, trucks, planes, cargo ships – which accounts for approximately 33 percent of carbon dioxide emissions; and

* Electric generation – largely from coal-fired power plants – which accounts for 38 percent of carbon dioxide emissions;

If we were to clean up these two areas, we would go a long way toward our goal of containing temperature increases to 1 or 2 degrees.

Let's begin with transportation. Fundamentally, there are two ways to reduce transportation emissions.

1. improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles.

2. move away from oil and gasoline-based fuels and toward alternatives.

Cars and trucks in the United States produce nearly 1.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year -- 20 percent of U.S. emissions, and half of global passenger-vehicle emissions. (EPA)

The good news is that the technology exists to significantly improve the fuel economy of these vehicles.

The bad news is that Detroit and many foreign auto manufacturers refuse to utilize available technologies to produce increased mileage and better fuel economy.

I have introduced legislation that would require the mileage for all cars, pick-up trucks, and SUVs be increased from 25 to 35 miles per gallon over the next 10 years. Twelve Senators have cosponsored the legislation.

If this bill becomes law:

* 420 million metric tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering the atmosphere by 2025, the equivalent of taking 90 million cars off the road in one year.

* 2.5 million barrels of oil a day would be saved by 2025. By coincidence, this is the amount of oil imported daily from the Persian Gulf.

So, if the fuel economy of vehicles is increased, it will be a major step in the right direction.

The other side of the coin is alternative fuels.

As long as our nation continues its addiction to oil, we cannot sufficiently slow the warming trend. Rather, we quickly need to get up and running on developing new, clean technologies and alternative fuels.

This includes the electric plug-in hybrid, bio-diesel fuels, hydrogen power, and E-85 made from cellulosic ethanol.

Thirty-seven million gallons of biodiesel were produced in 2004 in the United States. And that number more than doubled to 75 million gallons in 2005.

But additional incentives are still needed in both the public and private sector to move much more aggressively toward producing and using alternative fuels.

The second major piece of the puzzle is the generation and consumption of electricity. And the biggest culprit here is pulverized coal.

Today, coal-fired power plants in 38 states are the largest source of carbon dioxide in America. Coal, alone, produces about 30 percent of annual carbon-dioxide emissions, or 2.1 billion tons every year.

Globally, coal produces 9.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year – or one-third of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

It's absolutely critical that we find ways to clean up coal or find alternatives.

Earlier this year, the Senate Energy Committee held a conference on the way forward on global warming.

The clear consensus was that a mandatory cap-and-trade system was the most effective way to prompt changes in energy production, especially with regard to pulverized coal plants.

I'm working on legislation to do this – creating a national framework for coal plants, utilities and other carbon dioxide producers to reduce greenhouse gases.

Here's how it would work:

A cap on the amount of critical global warming gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide – would be established on all major emitters.

In all likelihood, the cap would remain at present levels for a period of time to allow companies to change their operations.

Gradually, these caps would be tightened, until the desired level is reached.

Coal plants would have two ways to meet the cap: either implement new technologies, or purchase credits from other companies that have reduced their emissions below the target cap.

(A credit essentially is an allowance to emit a ton of greenhouse gases.)

So, the cap would be met—and national levels of carbon dioxide would be reduced.

Peter Darbee, the CEO of PG&E, agrees that we need to act now, and PG&E is helping us with the necessary modeling and analysis of a practical and doable program.

One of the key elements of our program is that it allows farmers and foresters to participate and earn credits for emission reductions through green practices.

These include: * tilling land less frequently; * planting trees on vacant land; and * converting crops into bio-fuels.

Farmers and growers would be able to earn dollars for acres converted to carbon sequestration and reduction.

Details are still being worked out, but a properly implemented cap-and-trade program can work. Here's an example:

Using the Clean Air Act, cap and trade was implemented in the 1980s to target sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from electric utility plants in the northeast, the primary culprits of acid rain.

In the 16 years it has been in place, sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by about 34 percent (5 million tons) and nitrogen oxide emissions have been reduced by 43 percent (3 million tons). So cap and trade has been used and it has been effective.

But cleaning up electric generation is not enough. America needs to become much more energy efficient.

Residential and commercial buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. energy use. And an aggressive energy efficiency program could prevent as much as 1.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide going into the air.

For example, if all new construction and major retrofits were required to incorporate energy efficient building materials – such as insulation, more efficient windows, and renewable technologies like solar or wind, a significant reduction of carbon dioxide would result.

Green construction is also cost-effective. An initial $100,000 investment can result in a savings of $1 million or more over the life of the building. (California Sustainable Building Task Force)

Another example: incentivizing the purchase of energy efficient appliances.

ENERGY STAR home products, such as air conditioners, furnaces, refrigerators, dishwashers, phones, DVD players, and televisions, must become a standard buying practice for all Americans.

In 2005, these products saved consumers $12 billion, and reduced emissions by nearly 5 percent, an amount equal to taking 23 million cars off the road.

Energy Efficiency Can Make a Difference

In California, energy use per person has not gone up in the past 20 years, while national energy use has skyrocketed by 50 percent. To be specific, Californians use 6,000 kilowatts a year per person, while the national average is 12,000 kilowatts. (California Energy Commission)

Last September, the State announced a $2 billion energy efficiency and conservation program to decrease carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 3.8 million tons by 2008.

That is equivalent of reducing California's electricity emissions by 3.5%, or taking 650,000 cars off the road.

California's program can and should be replicated on a national level.

Individuals can also make a difference. Here are a few suggestions, all of which save energy and retard carbon dioxide emissions:

* Cool the hot water heater down by 10 degrees. That would save 660 pounds of carbon dioxide per household from being emitted into the air. If every household were to do it, California alone would avoid emitting 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide.

* Wash four out of five loads of laundry in cold water. That avoids 460 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 2.7 million tons for all of California.

* Run the dishwasher only with a full load. That avoids 200 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 1.2 million tons for all of California.

* Turn the air conditioner thermostat up a single degree. That avoids 220 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 1.3 million tons for all of California.

* Carpool 2 days a week. That avoids 1,590 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 9.2 million metric tons for all of California.

* Keep car tires properly inflated. That avoids 250 pounds of carbon dioxide from being emitted per household per year, or 1.5 million tons for all of California.

All of these are easy to do and they can make a difference.

Global Warming Legislation

It is doubtful, in the short time remaining in this legislative session, that we will see action on global warming.

So in January, on the first day of the new Congress, I plan to bring to introduce these three bills:

* A sound mandatory cap and trade program, which could reduce emissions by 10 percent or more by 2025;

* A mandatory requirement that all passenger vehicles – cars, SUVs and light trucks – have increased mileage of 10 percent within the next 10 years. That means mileage would go from 25 miles per gallon today to 35 miles per gallon by model year 2017.

* A national energy efficiency program -- modeled after what California has achieved, including strict appliance and building standards and requiring utilities to use energy efficiency measures to meet a portion of their demand.

International Action

Finally, the U.S. should make addressing global warming a top priority and join the European Union and other nations in reducing emissions.

Kyoto is certainly not perfect, and it will expire in 2012. But the U.S. needs to be a leader to ensure that there is a framework in place after 2012 to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The U.S. should also lead an effort with China to raise a public-private partnership fund of $100 billion to prioritize global warming projects that can be conducted bilaterally.

Today, the U.S. and China are the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases. For China, reliance on coal remains chiefly responsible for its carbon dioxide output.

In fact, China's coal use outpaces that of the U.S., EU, and Japan combined. Coal accounts for 70 percent of China's energy needs. And consumption is increasing by 14 percent annually.

So a private/public partnership that funds key carbon dioxide reduction projects on a bilateral basis would be an effective way for our countries to work together. This proposal was made at the Aspen Strategy Group symposium a few weeks ago and it had a very positive response.

Example of Great Britain

Taken together, the policies I've outlined tonight can make a significant difference. You have to look no further than across the Atlantic Ocean to see what can be accomplished.

Already Great Britain has brought its emissions to 14 percent below 1990 levels.

They've done this through a comprehensive program requiring commercial electricity suppliers to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2010, making grants available for the installation of renewable sources, and providing incentives for the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels.

The Senate passed a similar bill last year, but, unfortunately, it was dropped in conference by the Republican majority. I will work with Senator Bingaman, the bill's sponsor, on moving this again next year.

California Leading the Way

The good news is that California has entered into a groundbreaking partnership with Great Britain to address climate change by sharing of best practices on how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

And this is just one part of the State's efforts to take the lead on global warming.

Additionally, the State has enacted a law requiring a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from the tailpipes of passenger vehicles by 2016. This will help the State reduce emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Ten other States have followed California's lead, and Canada has adopted similar regulations.

California is also considering legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions further -- to 2000 levels by 2010 and to 1990 levels by 2020.

And earlier this month, Los Angeles joined the Clinton Climate Initiative, along with 21 of the world's largest cities to create an international consortium to reduce costs on energy-efficient products and share ideas on cutting greenhouse gas pollution.

With every challenge comes a new opportunity, and California is well positioned to take advantage of a new low-carbon economy.

The State has already begun to reap the economic benefits of cleaner, greener, and more efficient technologies and standards.

For example, substantial venture capital funding is available today for clean energy projects. And these new start-ups are expected to generate between 48,000 and 75,000 new jobs over the next five years. (Environmental Entrepreneurs Study)

Here are just a few of the most promising:

* A Silicon Valley start-up -- Ion America -- has raised $165 million to develop clean fuel cells that will produce both electricity and hydrogen to fuel our vehicles.

* Bill Gates has joined with venture capitalist, Vinod Khosla -- who as I previously mentioned is in the audience tonight -- to spearhead investment efforts in ethanol plants which, when completed, will produce 220 million gallons by 2009.

* And others are investing in new ideas – inexpensive solar panels, windmills that can be built in your backyard for $10,000, and geothermal energy that harnesses the heat of the Earth.

So California is leading the way, but as large as California is, we need to see national leadership and strong national mandates and incentives to do what needs to be done.

Time to Act

Working together, I believe we can reduce our emissions sufficiently to stabilize the Earth's climate, to minimize warming, and slow global temperature increases to 1-2 degrees to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Here is what I ask of you.

Be energy conscious.

Bring pressure on your utility, your government, and commit yourself and your family to reduce energy consumption.

Don't shift the burden to the next generation.

The choice is clear.

It is time to stop talking and to begin acting.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

In an effort to promote more awareness around global warming and the need for national legislation on carbon dioxide emissions reductions, CutCO2.org is giving away O2 and CutCo2 bumper stickers.

Stickers will be given to anyone who provides a receipt for the purchase of carbon credits or planted tree. If you would like to plant a tree, visit RainForest Credits or the Arbor Day website. Or you can purchase carbon credits by visiting NativeEnergy.

This will all be done on the honor system. Please do not send any receipts -- the last thing we need is more wasted paper. Supplies are limited to the first 1,000 individuals that send a self-addressed stamped envelope to:

CutCO2.org
111 Hekili Street
Suite A-198
Kailua, HI 96734

We will update the site when we run out of stickers. If you'd like, you can download the image files for both stickers here (O2 and CutCO2) and print them yourself.

And, don't forget to contact the White House and your congressmen to let them know you expect them address this issue now!

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

This week, state governments in both Australia and the U.S. passed legislation designed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Both nations are the only major industrialized countries that have refused to sign the Kyoto protocol on global warming, which sets targets for the emissions reduction.

In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard's conservative government refused to support a plan by state leaders to introduce caps on carbon dioxide emissions, saying it would devastate the economy. Howard's government has repeatedly said the 1997 agreement would unfairly hamper Australia's economy, which is heavily dependent on exporting coal and other carbon-rich energy sources.

The economics of global warming is relatively unknown today with many industries viewing the emissions controls as an additional and others are finding opportunity for new technologies and business lines.

But the leaders of Australia's six states and two territories - all members of the Labor party that is in opposition nationally - have sought to bypass the government's refusal to sign Kyoto by introducing their own plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The so-called "cap and trade" plan gives companies a maximum emissions target for three polluting gases - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - and would result in large fines to those that exceed their caps.

The plan, detailed in a paper released Wednesday, would also allow low-polluting companies to trade their remaining carbon emissions credits for money or credit.

Without the federal government's support, the plan will be difficult to enforce.

South Australia state Premier Mike Rann said the regional leaders were forced to act because the federal government was not properly addressing the issue of global warming. "Ultimately this is a failure of national leadership," Rann told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. "Ultimately someone's got to do it. The stakes are too high."

Australia's federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane dismissed the scheme, saying it would further increase Australia's burgeoning energy costs. According to Macfarlane, "that sort of impact on the economy would be devastating."

He said the government was investing in other methods of greenhouse gas reduction, including an experimental technology that would allow carbon dioxide emissions to captured and pumped underground for storage.

In the U.S., seven northeastern U.S. states announced that they had agreed on a model rule that would create the country's first market for heat-trapping carbon dioxide by curbing emissions at power plants.

The agreement, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, is relatively weak compared to the European Trading Scheme, the emissions trading program set up by the European Union to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

States in the western U.S. such as California are also trying to form regional regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Some experts have suggested that companies facing emissions reductions standards on each coast would lobby for a single national regulatory standard.

The RGGI would cap carbon dioxide emissions at about current levels at power plants from 2009 until 2015. Emissions at the plants would then be gradually reduced by 10 percent by 2019.

The first round of the Kyoto pact requires developed countries to cut greenhouse emissions by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012.

The RGGI was initiated in 2003 by Republican New York Gov. George Pataki.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island dropped out of the group late last year, saying the agreement could boost electricity rates. The RGGI said in a statement on Tuesday that homeowners would pay at most an additional $21 annually and would eventually save money as the plan helps power plants become more efficient.

Many Massachusetts legislators expect the state will rejoin the pact when Gov. Mitt Romney, also a Republican, leaves office. Romney is not seeking reelection in 2006.

The states participating in RGGI are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. Maryland recently adopted legislation requiring the state to join RGGI by June 2007. The states now each have to approve the model rule.

Several bills in the U.S. Congress seek to create a national greenhouse emissions market.

Why is are the U.S. and Australian feds having such a hard time comng to grips with this issue? Have an opinion, submit a comment here.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

For the fortunate among us, summertime is often vacation time. And these days vacations mean long road trips, airline flights and other nasty CO2 emitting activities. But, hey, that's no reason to feel guilty, right? We all deserve a little break from the daily grind.

So, what can you do to put a little extra sheen on your summer break and make it a truly guilt-free get away? Here are a few ideas:
Travel Right
If you are taking a road trip this vacation, don't forget to get your car tuned up before you leave. An efficient car, with properly inflated tires will emit less CO2 and it will reduce the odds that you spend part of your break waiting on the interstate for that tow truck to show.

Feed Your Addiction to Conserve
If you've found this site, then chance are pretty good you've pondered the nature of this ultra-modern consumer paradise we live in. Rather than feed your addiction to the usual consumer junk, consider the alternative. It's much healthier to become a conservation addict.

Start with turning up the thermostat on your air conditioner a 2-3 degrees. Even better, try roughing it a little by... dare I say it... turning off the AC and hanging out in a shady park, at the beach or local pool. You can do the same in your hotel room -- when you leave for a day of site seeing, kill the AC.

If you are doing a lot driving this summer, consider a new cooling technology that is far less wasteful than your cars AC -- the window. Yes, believe it or not running your AC in the car does increase your pollution and CO2 emissions.

Don't leave the light on in the kitchen when you leave for your week long vacation. Chances are all the burglars in your neighborhood know that trick anyway. If you feel compelled to anyway, make sure the one you leave on is a compact fluorescent bulb. And, don't forget to unplug all those electronics that run on standby mode, like the TV, VCR, etc.

Get Local When you are traveling, forget about the supermarket and big chain restaurants. Buy local, especially when it comes to locally grown fruits and vegetables. Not only will you get to support the local economy, but you are helping to reduce the overall emissions generated from your meal. Besides, visiting the local farmer's market is a great way to meet and interact with the community your visiting. You can find a farmer's market by visiting the USDA website.

While you are at it, consider slowing down a bit for your vacation. Forget abut driving for every part of your site seeing excursion and instead try walking around town.

My Favorite - Plant a Tree
Yup, good ole fashion tree planting is still a great idea . Not only do trees remove that excess CO2, they replace it with clean and healthy Oxygen. Planting a tree is easy and fun, too. You can simply take some clippings from another tree and root them, find some good seed and germinate away or visit your local nursery.

You can also visit the Arbor Day website to learn about what types of trees will flourish in your area and how to plant trees to help cool your home.

Of course, if you are lazy or too scared to get dirty, then have someone else do it for you. There are quite a few charitable organizations that would be delighted to plant a bunch of trees for very little money. After all, unlike money, trees really do grow on trees.

Sustainable Harvest (a four-star rated charity) will plant 100 trees for a mere $40. There are other choices, too, like Trees for Cities, Trees Atlanta or others near you.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

ABC.com published an article entitled Methane Burps and Heat Waves: Global Warming Made Visible by Bill Blakemore, which discusses the potential reamifications of Methane seeping out from the ocean floors.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming