Global Warming and CO2 Emissions Blog

Jewish Vegetarians of North America (JVNA) has produced a major documentary about how Jewish teachings can help address current environmental crises.

Labels: climate change, environmental activism, global warming, international, Israel, Middle East, sustainability, vegetarian

Check out this article in Live Science about reducing your red meat consumption:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080505-chicken-beef.html

Interested in becoming a vegetarian, but not sure you can do it? Check out GoVeg.com.

Labels: climate change, environmental activism, vegetarian

Sometimes, it's helpful to consider the full range of reasons to fight climate change. Sometimes, those reasons can be heartbreaking. UNICEF, the UN children's agency, says the that effects of global warming disproportionately harm children in the developing world.

Read more at: http://www.topnews.in/global-warming-affecting-poor-children-most-238697

Source: We Can Solve the Climate Crisis

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, environmental activism

Read this letter and action item from the Sierra Club...

Two weeks ago John McCain was the only Senator to duck a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America -- dooming to failure the measure that would have helped make renewable energy more affordable and accessible. Now it turns out this missed vote is part of a pattern.

Yesterday, the League of Conversation Voters (LCV) released the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard giving Senator McCain a score of ZERO. According to the scorecard, McCain was the only member of Congress to skip all 15 crucial environmental votes scored by LCV.

Can you help spread the word about McCain's 0% environmental voting record and write a letter to the editor? The opinion page is widely read in most communities -- and a well-placed letter can reach a broad audience. We've included sample text to get you started.

McCain's LCV score exposes the real record behind the rhetoric -- a lifetime LCV score of 24, a history of siding with the polluters and special interests, and a consistent pattern of ducking important environmental votes.

Let's place thousands of letters in papers around the country. Click here to let us know you’re writing a letter.

Labels: environmental activism, John McCain, Sierra Club

... The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world. That factor of 32 has big consequences...

Read the whole NY Times article here.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, consumption, environmental activism, pollution

Watch these videos and share them with your skeptical friends.

The Original "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See":


"Patching Holes #1":


"Patching Holes #2":


Patching Holes #3:


Watch other videos from wonderingmind42 on YouTube here.

Labels: climate change debate, environmental activism

Bank Secrets Cracked

New report reveals alarming investment practices by financial groups

Today, the financial watchdog Netwerk Vlaanderen NGO (B) launches the report 'Bank Secrets'TM. The dossier details the investments by 121 financial groups in companies violating fundamental human rights. The investors channel money to 13 companies selling weapons to dictators, denying people access to land and clean water, co-operating with armed rebel groups and being involved in forced relocations and heavy and irreversible pollution.

International banks involved

121 banks from 24 different countries play a role in the financing of these companies, including banks based in Abu Dhabi, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, DRC, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritius, The Netherlands, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, the UK, the US and the multilateral World Bank.

Netwerk Vlaanderen reports that for the period 2003 - 2007, loans add up to a total of US$13 billion. Furthermore, during the period 2004-2007 banks have arranged and underwritten bond issues to a total value of US$ 28.4 billion. During the same period, the companies were assisted in issuing shares to a total value of US$ 14.8 billion.

Investors complicit to human right abuses

Although the human rights abuses are well documented, financiers keep on supporting the involved companies.

The lack of sustainability standards in their investments policies, allows them to channel money to companies like AviChina, which sells military material to China, Burma and Sudan.

Because of violations of human rights in these countries, the European Union decided on an arms embargo. By financing AviChina, investors undermine this embargo.

Other reported investments include the support to mining companies which systematically pollute the environment. The Australian company Emperor Mines, for example, exploits a gold and silver mine in an ecologically and culturally precious area in Papua New Guinea. Emperor Mines dumps monthly 14.000 tuns of toxic waste - containing lead, chromium, arsenic, cadmium, nickel and copper - in the local river. Thousands of people depend on the water for fishery and small scale agriculture. This does not stop several major international financial groups from backing the company financially.

These are just some examples of the practices detailed in the report 'Bank Secrets'. The overall picture is staggering and continues to provoke fierce reactions from bank personnel and clients.

Bank personnel and clients react

In Belgium the report was launched in co-operation with the largest union in the financial sector. Stefaan Decock, spokesperson from the union LBC-NVK/CNE, states: "These kind of investments can no longer be tolerated. We think that financial institutions should take important environmental and human rights norms into consideration in their investment decisions. We continue to work for an ethical bottom line: no money for dictators, serious environmental destruction, controversial arms or violations of labour rights."

"Investors should not wait until they are found legally responsible for the violations of human rights and serious environmental damage. They should make sure they don't generate profit from such controversial practices. Financial institutions have a huge leverage power and can contribute to positive change.", said Inez Louwagie from Netwerk Vlaanderen.

Follow your money around the world at www.banksecrets.be

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, environmental activism, finance, global warming, international, pollution

Severn Suzuki speaking at UN Earth Summit 1992

Labels: climate change, environmental activism, Severn Suzuki, UN Earth Summit

Labels: 11th hour, carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, environmental activism, global warming, leonardo dicaprio

Treehugger broke the the story at 5AM this morning. Here is an update on the winning of the Nobel Prize by Al Gore and the IPCC:

-Yvo de Boer, the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, says ""I hope this will enhance further a sense of urgency." ::Reuters

-The right wing smear machine at Fox swung into action, writing off the prize with "Here’s something extraordinary, What do Al Gore, Yasser Arafat, and that crazy Jimmy Carter have in common? They all won the Nobel Peace Prize?" Insulting more people and nations in one sentence than we thought possible. Expect much more of this. ::Think Progress

-Pressure increases for a presidential run. "We believe that under these circumstances he has no choice but to take the one step left to have the greatest impact in changing policy on global warming - run for president," "He is needed now, not in the future" ::National Post

-George Bush's spokesman was more gracious than their Fox poodles. "The president learned about it this morning," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, who is traveling with Bush in Florida. "Of course he's happy for Vice President Gore and happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize." "Obviously, it's an important recognition and we're sure the vice president is thrilled." ::Reuters

Labels: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, documentary, environmental activism, global warming

Keep up on the latest green news during this presidential campaign or research candidates here:

Labels: climate change, environmental activism, presidential campaign 2008

I'm no big fan of Dicaprio's acting skills. In the 11th Hour he proved that his speaking skills were no less wooden than his acting. Despite that, this film is a must see for everyone - liberals, conservatives, moderates and anarchists alike.

Why? This film is not partisan. Opinions are provided from diverse source including the former chief of the CIA, top scientists and thinkers, policy makers, entrepreneurs and activists. Absent from the film is the ghost of partisanship that hovered over Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

The film does a decent job laying out the causes and consequences of anthropomorphic climate change. But that is not its primary mission. More importantly, it seeks to answer the question of 'why?'. Why has the human race brought itself to a state of existence so disconnected from the biosphere - our home. And, unlike Gore's film realistic solutions are presented - not the sort of solutions that might be characterized as "tightening the belt" of consumption. Rather, the solutions presented paint a picture of the way many of us might agree the world ought to be, with or without climate change.

Labels: 11th hour, carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, documentary, environmental activism, global warming, leonardo dicaprio

Labels: 11th hour, carbon dioxide emissions, documentary, environmental activism, global warming, leonardo dicaprio

On 7.7.07 more than two billion people will come together during Live Earth. That number is unfathomable - more than one-fourth of the world's population will participate in a single event and demand a solution to the climate crisis. This unique moment presents us with a unique choice.

Do we use this unprecedented opportunity to organize a global movement that will last beyond 7.7.07? Or do we let the moment pass?

I know my answer - and I think I know yours. That's why I am issuing this challenge: Let's use this moment to pledge our support to solving the climate crisis. Just as important – let's ask everyone we know to join us as part of this movement.

Sign the 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:

http://liveearthpledge.org/algore.php

The 7.7.07 Live Earth Pledge:

I PLEDGE:

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;

4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.

Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:

http://liveearthpledge.org/algore.php

Together we were able to make March’s Congressional hearings a huge moment by collecting more than 500,000 messages and demonstrating the significant public support for solving the climate crisis to our elected leaders and the media. Our next opportunity to demonstrate this growing movement will come on 7.7.07

Live Earth will not just be a 24-hour concert – but the launch of a massive campaign to demonstrate that the political will exists to solve the climate crisis.

Sign the Live Earth Pledge by visiting:

http://liveearthpledge.org/algore.php

As our movement grows larger we will shake loose the paralysis currently gripping our political system. Working together we can get it done.

Thank you,

Al Gore

P.S. You can still sign up to host a Live Earth House Party by visiting:

http://joinliveearth.org/gore

Labels: Al Gore, carbon credits, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming, Live Earth

Leonardo DiCaprio's new documentary film 11th Hour is accepting registrations. Sign up today and be notified when the film is released and other related events.

According to DiCaprio, "global warming is not only the only number one environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity today," "We all have to do our part to raise awareness about global warming and the problems we as a people face in promoting a sustainable environmental future for our planet's future." (Source)

At last week's Natural Resources Defense Council gala in Gotham, the three-time Oscar nominee recalled taking part in an ABC film a few years ago that focused on threats to the Earth. "Unfortunately, the message was drowned out by the inclusion of the contrary viewpoint," said DiCaprio, who narrated and co-wrote the forthcoming environmental documentary.

DiCaprio said this film focuses only on those who acknowledge global warming, such as Stephen Hawking, Mikhail Gorbachev and Andrew Weil. "The message won't be diluted by our having to yell over oil-company-funded 'scientists,' " he said.

Register here: http://www.11thhourfilm.com/

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, documentary, environmental activism, global warming, leonardo dicaprio

TXU Energy announced today it has officially suspended efforts to obtain permits for eight coal-fueled power units in Texas.

A Motion to Stay was filed yesterday with the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for seven coal-fueled power units that are under consideration in contested proceedings before SOAH. The company also has suspended permitting activities related to an eighth permit, which was not a part of the contested proceedings.

The stay request is for a period of up to six months upon approval. Upon closing of the merger agreement with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR) and Texas Pacific Group (TPG) announced earlier this week, TXU plans to formally withdraw the eight pending air permit applications.

"This is an important step in fulfilling TXU's commitment, made in connection with the recently announced merger, to immediately seek to suspend the permit application process for the eight units announced last year," said Mike McCall, chief executive officer, TXU Wholesale. "Further, upon closing the merger agreement, TXU does not intend to apply or reapply for permits to build additional coal units utilizing current pulverized coal-fuel technology."

Last, week the Company announced that it would be going private in a purchase transaction lead by KKR and TPG. Interestingly, the Company has stated that - among other reasons for going private - "Stronger Environmental Policies and New Investments in Alternative Energy" are central to the transaction.

The Company announced several green initiatives including:

• Planned coal-fueled generation units reduced from eleven to three, preventing 56 million tons of annual carbon emissions
• 400 million investment in demand side management initiatives
• Transaction endorsed by Environmental Defense and Natural Resources Defense Council
• Increased commitment to exploring renewable energy sources and investing in alternative energy technologies

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

In Hollywood, after the Oscars and all the parties and glitz and glamor, most "winners" will likely curl up in bed or take a vacation until the congratulatory phone calls cease. Next, I suppose they might have a spa day complete with massage, manicure and pedicure, followed by a power lunch with their agent to plan their next big move.

Maybe that's how they do it Hollywood, but somebody forgot to tell Al Gore.

Just days after An Inconvenient Truth won a couple of Oscars, Al Gore is making a move, not a movie. His move could hardly be considered "lateral" -- some might even consider it a demotion. Gore has decided to pursue the mundane business of delivery guy.

No, you won't find him racing around Manhattan atop a speeding 10-speed with courier bag in toe.

No, he has not taken a position with the Postal Service or FedEx or UPS.

On March 21st, Gore will be towing 10s or 100s of thousands of messages from YOU to Congress. So, whether you are a proponent of taking rational steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions OR if your think this whole "global warming thang" is just a hoax, you can take advantage of this free. limited time offer to have Al Gore deliver your message to congress -- no postage required.

Click here to send your message: http://algore.com/cards.html

Labels: Al Gore, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

GreenCars has posted its annual Greenest and Meanest list. The top scorers include:

1. Honda Civic GX
2. Toyota Prius
3. Honda Civic Hybrid
4. Nissan Altima Hybrid
5. Toyota Yaris
6. Toyota Corolla
7. Toyota Camry Hybrid
8. Honda Fit
9. Kia Rio / Rio 5
10. Hyundai Accent
11. Hyundai Elantra
12. Honda Civic

The list is topped this year not by the Toyota Prius, but by the Honda Civic GX. The GX is a new entry that uses compressed natural gas (CNG). The car is only available in California and New York. So, for the rest of us, the Prius is still the greenest way to go.

You can find GreenCars complete lists here:

Greenest Cars of 2007
Meanest Cars of 2007

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

According to the Cristian Science Monitor, American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year. Read the complete story here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.htm

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently published Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, a review of current scientific data collected by the world's leading scientists and a discussion of that data for policy makers.

Among other things, the report states that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level..."

Those who question whether or not this phenomenon is truly outside the scope of natural cycles or doubt that it may be anthropomorphic, may wish to consider reading the report in its entirety prior to forming any opinions.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

This excerpt from NPR's story earlier today:

Compact fluorescent light bulbs save consumers money — and their use can help slow global warming. So why haven't they come into widespread use yet?

A compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) is a tiny version of the long overhead lights in your office. It's twisted into a spiral. The CFL fits into the same fixtures where you use regular incandescent bulbs. The CFLs cost more, but they use about one-third of the electricity of the incandescent bulbs.

Utilities and local governments have tried giving them away to promote switching over to CFLs.

Wal-Mart hopes to more than double its sales of them in 2007.

"We are committed to selling 100 million CFL bulbs this year," said Andy Rubin, Wal-Mart vice president for sustainability.

He said one CFL should last five years, and the customer's electric bills should be 50 cents to 75 cents lower each month as a result of switching from one standard bulb to one compact fluorescent bulb.

If the nation's largest retailer were to meet its goal of selling 100 million CFL bulbs, the aggregate electric bill savings would be $3 billion, according to Rubin.

When Wal-Mart itself switched to CFLs in its ceiling-fan-lights displays, it saved $8 million a year.

"There is a real desire right now for action," Rubin said. By buying CFLs, customers know they are helping curb greenhouse gases. "Everyone can do this."

Why Use a CFL?

According to the federal government, if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star approved compact fluorescent bulb (CFL), the United States would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars.

Energy Star is a joint project with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy that promotes energy efficient - and thus climate-friendly - products.

But not all CFLs are created equal. Here, some tips from Energy Star about what to look for and where to use a CFL:

The Benefits

- Energy Star qualified CFLs use at least two-thirds less energy than standard incandescent bulbs and last up to 10 times longer (average lifespan of a CFL is five years).

- CFLs save $30 or more in energy costs over each bulb's lifetime.

- CFLs generate 70 percent less heat, making them safer to operate.

Where to Use

- To get the most energy savings, replace bulbs where lights are on the most, such as the family and living rooms, kitchen, dining room and porch.

- Install them in hard to reach fixtures, like ceiling fans.

- Make sure the CFL matches the right fixture by reading any restrictions on the package. Some CFLs work with dimmers, others are specially made for recessed or enclosed fixtures.

Myths

- CFLs have a harsh, cold light quality. Increasingly, this is less of an issue. Over the past few years, manufacturers have worked to provide a warmer color. Some people say they still notice a difference, but the gap is narrowing. For a warmer, white light, look for a color temperature of 2,700-3,000K on the package.

- CFLs aren't for bathrooms. Not necessarily. CFLs can work in bathrooms, but humidity may shorten the bulb's life.

- CFLs can't be used in older houses. In fact, CFLs may work better than incandescent bulbs in houses with older wiring; CFLs generate less heat and draw less electrical current.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

This is in from Ken Geddes, a reader in the UK:

"From here you can see the fuel mix of the electricity supplier you are using in your home, more importantly you can actually do a comparison from the home page so see just how much you can reduce your own CO2 footprint by changing electricity supplier.

The interesting thing is that you can actually reduce your CO2 footprint by changing electricity supplier but not actually having to go to a “renewable energy” supplier.

Have a look at www.fuelmix.co.uk and see what you think, its free and 100% impartial."

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

In the United States, drivers consume nearly 400 million gallons of gasoline per day. This includes you and me and almost everyone else. Many of us are genuinely concerned about the environmental implications of our daily choices, but we rarely have good data to rely upon. So, we end up making uninformed choices. For example, when you fill up your Prius at an Exxon station what are the implications fo that choice, as compared to filling up at Chevron.

Well, the Sierra Club wants to help you make an informed decision. And, to do so it reviewed the records of the eight largest U.S. oil companies. The worst places to fill up ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips. The best places are BP and Sunoco.

Want to learn more? Read the Sierra Club study here.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fast-growing weeds have evolved over a few generations to adapt to climate change, which could signal the start of an "evolution explosion" in response to global warming, scientists reported on Monday.

This means that the weeds will likely keep up with any attempts to develop crops that can adapt to global warming, said Arthur Weis, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine.

But some long-lived species -- like the venerated California redwood tree, with a life-span of hundreds of years -- will not have the capacity to adapt so quickly, because their life cycles are so long, Weis said in a telephone interview.

The quick-growing weedy plant known as field mustard showed the ability to change reproductive patterns over a period of just seven years, Weis said.

"If you take a climate shift, such as we've had here in southern California, in a very few number of generations you can get a change in ecologically important traits that can allow these fast-growing weedy species to hang on and actually do well despite the change in environments," he said.

Weis and his colleagues cultivated two sets of mustard seeds in a greenhouse: one set collected in 1997, just before a five-year drought, and a second set collected in 2004, after the drought ended.

The plants were divided into three groups, with each getting different amounts of water, ranging from drought-dry to soggy. In every case, the post-drought generation of plants flowered earlier, meaning the plants could produce seeds before the soil dried out. Late-bloomers would wither before any seeds were produced in a drought year.

SPEEDED-UP LIFE-CYCLE

How fast a change is this, on the evolutionary timetable? Weis calculated that this represents a 16 percent acceleration of the mustard plants' life-cycle over seven generations.

"That's a pretty big change in age of maturation," he said.

Asked to hypothetically compare this to evolutionary changes in people, Weis offered what he termed a very crude analogy: if humans evolved at the same rate as the mustard plants in the experiment, the average onset of the age of reproduction in humans would slip from 16 years to 13 1/2 in seven generations.

Weis is spearheading a project to collect, dry and freeze seeds from around North America so they can be studied 50 years from now. He figures that global warming will prompt lots of evolutionary changes and scientists will want to have evidence of plants before the changes occurred. The effort is called Project Baseline.

"If global climate change is coming, and it is, we have this huge unplanned experiment in evolutionary biology facing us," Weis said. "Climate change could lead to an evolution explosion. ... This gives scientists an unprecedented opportunity to look at the actual nuts and bolts of evolutionary change."

The idea is for scientists in the mid-21st century to go back to the same locations where plants are being collected and note the differences between the plants from the different time periods.

Research by Weis and his team was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Reprinted from Reuters
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Alternative fuels get a boost as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger introduces world’s first standard reducing carbon content in fuels.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday called for the world's first low-carbon fuel standard, a rule that would reduce carbon emissions from transportation fuels in the state by 10 percent by 2020.

Once it's put in place by the state's Energy Commission and Air Resources Board, the standard will require fuel refiners and sellers to replace 20 percent of passenger-vehicle fuels with lower-carbon fuels. The standard is part of the move to reduce greenhouse gases in California under the Global Warming Solutions Act signed into law in September, which mandates that 2020 emissions match those of 1990.

The move is expected to more than triple the size of California's renewable fuels market and add more than 7 million alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles, 20 times current numbers. It could be a harbinger of policy change in the rest of the country and the world, as the European Union is also considering a similar measure. It's also likely to spark another round of investment and innovation in fuels, companies said.

"Today's announcement is very important news for California entrepreneurs and investors," said Bob Epstein, head of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), who added that more than $500 million was invested in alternative fuels last year. "If you know how to make fuels that don't use oil and reduce carbon, California is the place to be."

Environmentalists say the standard could make a big difference because transportation fuels in California contribute a significant portion of greenhouse gases. California relies on petroleum alone for 96 percent of its transportation needs.

And transportation fuels make up 40 percent of the greenhouse gases in the state, said Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency. This standard alone could go 10 percent of the way toward fulfilling the goal set by the global warming law, removing 13 million tons of carbon dioxide, she said.

In a statement, Chevron said it "shares the concerns of government and public alike on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions," but did not indicate that it endorsed or opposed Gov. Schwarzenegger's move. Other oil companies could not be reached for comment, and did not speak at the press conference in San Francisco.

David Crane, a senior advisor to the governor, said oil companies are aware of the standard. "We believe we have their support," he said. "We weren't able to arrange for anyone [from the oil companies] to be here, but you will soon hear from them."

Robert Sawyer, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said the agency plans to make decisions about how to put the standard in place over the next few months, with those decisions taking effect over the next year and a half.

Dan Skopec, undersecretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, said the Environmental Protection Agency will look to fuel companies to provide information about the carbon content of their fuels. The agency will audit that information and make sure it's correct, he said.

The intention is to leave the decisions up to refiners and sellers as to exactly how to meet the standard.

That leaves the door open for new fuels still being developed or invented, Mr. Skopec said, who also mentioned cellulosic ethanol—ethanol from materials like wood chips, corn stalks, and switchgrass, which has less carbon than carbon from starches like corn, wheat, and sugarcane—as a goal.

"The government is not predicting winners and losers; the market will decide what the best fuel is based on economics, needs for consumers, and carbon content," Mr. Skopec said.

The standard is an important signal to the investors, some of which have been burned by short-term, wavering government policies in the past, that demand for these fuels will be secure for at least 13 years, he said.

It could also spark an early version of carbon trading in the state, another opportunity for new business models. Fuel providers able to produce more low-carbon fuel than required will get credits they can bank or sell, Mr. Skopec said.

Bill Jones, former secretary of state and the chair of Pacific Ethanol, said the standard deals with the problems of greenhouse gases and energy independence without leaving out economics. He bragged that the company's ethanol plant in Madera, California, generated jobs and brings $1 million in taxes to the city's coffers.

The standard "allows everyone to go out and work hard and maybe come up with some new solutions that might surpass what we have now," he said.

Gov. Schwarzenegger plans to introduce the standard during his state of the state speech Tuesday evening, asking California to "blaze the way" for the U.S., China, and the rest of the world.

"Our cars have been running on dirty fuel for too long," according to an excerpt from his prepared statements. "Our country has been dependent on foreign oil for too long. I ask you to set in motion the means to free ourselves from oil and from OPEC. I ask you to encourage the free market to overthrow the old order. California has the muscle to bring about such change. I say use it."

Written By Jennifer Kho
Reprinted from Red Herring

Labels: arnold schwarzenegger, California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Labels: carbon credits, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming, oxygen

Al Gore is ready to build on the success of "An Inconvenient Truth" and start organizing to solve the climate crisis. He's working to get hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress demanding real action to stop global warming. And he's asking for our help.

Can you help out by signing the petition at the link below? If you do, Al Gore will personally deliver our comments to Congress. I just did it myself and it only takes a second.

Visit MoveOn.org to send a message to congress now:
http://pol.moveon.org/climatecrisis/

Labels: Al Gore, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

November 26, 2006

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments this Wednesday to determine whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide emissions to deal with the global warming threat. The case is presented by a group of environmentalists and leaders of some large cities.

The coalition, led by Massachusetts, demanded to review the case and insisted to check whether carbon-dioxide is harmful to the environment as much as lead and smog-causing elements. The Bush administraton is expected to argue before the court that the EPA has lacked the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO₂ as a pollutant.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly and others have argued that this case is very important from the point of view of the Environmental Protection Agency's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem.

The case comes just a few weeks after a federal government report concluded that far fewer polar bear cubs are surviving off Alaska's northern coast, something many environmentalists are blaming on global warming. Also earlier this month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that signs of warming continue in the Arctic with a decline in sea ice, an increase in shrubs growing on the tundra, and rising concerns about the Greenland ice sheet.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Some power companies have recognized the reality of climate change and are actively working to decrease global warming pollution. One company in Texas, however, is about to make theirs a whole lot worse -- with global impacts that will be felt for decades to come.

Texas-based TXU, Inc. is now planning a $10 billion investment in eleven new coal-fired power plants over the next several years. A few months ago, Texas Governor Rick Perry (who has taken more than $324,000 in contributions from coal companies over the past six years) fast-tracked the permitting process and limited the time frame for public comment on this proposal.

Regrettably, the proposed plants will use outdated and highly-polluting technology -- pulverized coal -- when far more advanced technologies are commercially available and affordable. Alternatively, Texas could easily handle future energy needs by investing in energy efficiency -- a step that offers the best, fastest, cleanest and cheapest route to energy independence.

If these proposed plants are built, they will produce a total of 78 million tons of carbon dioxide each year -- the equivalent of the emissions from 10 million Cadillac SUVs -- which will continue each year of the plants' expected 25 to 35 years of operations. Outdated, carbon-intensive energy choices will be locked in for decades to come -- just when the rest of the nation is taking steps to reduce our fossil fuel dependence and cut global warming emissions.

Call to action:
Tell TXU CEO John Wilder (with a cc to Texas Governor Rick Perry) to cancel their plans for new coal-fired power plants, and invest in energy efficiency instead.

Deadline:
immediate

Additional Information:
We urge you to personalize the text of the letter and express your views in your own words.

For more information on this topic, please visit the website of Environmental Defense here.

Contact information and links for advocacy group(s) working on this issue:

Email TXU executives here!

TXU Headquarters:

TXU
Energy Plaza
1601 Bryan Street
Dallas, TX 75201 USA
214.812.4600 - phone

Environmental Contacts:

Dorothy Gilbreath
214.812.4445
dorothy.gilbreath@txu.com

TXU Environment, Health & Safety
Energy Plaza
1601 Bryan Street
Dallas, TX 75201

Write a letter or call today!

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.

A dozen U.S. states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned. It is the principal "greenhouse" gas that many scientists believe is flowing into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, leading to a warming of the earth and widespread ecological changes. One way to reduce those emissions is to have cleaner-burning cars.

The Bush administration intends to argue before the court on Wednesday that the EPA lacks the power under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The agency contends that even if it did have such authority, it would have discretion under the law on how to address the problem without imposing emissions controls.

The states, led by Massachusetts, and more than a dozen environmental groups insist the 1970 law makes clear that carbon dioxide is a pollutant — much like lead and smog-causing chemicals — that is subject to regulation because its poses a threat to public health.

A sharply divided federal appeals court ruled in favor of the government in 2005. But last June, the Supreme Court decided to take up the case, plunging for the first time into the politically charged debate over global warming. The ruling next year is expected to be one of the court's most important ever involving the environment.

At issue for now is pollution from automobiles. But the ruling indirectly may affect how the agency deals with carbon dioxide that comes from electric power plants.

In a separate lawsuit, the EPA says the Clean Air Act also prevents it from regulating such emissions from those plants. That claim would be undercut, Bookbinder says, if the high court rules in the states' favor in the auto emissions case.

President George W. Bush has rejected calls to regulate carbon dioxide. He favors voluntary steps by industry and development of new technologies to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

The United States accounts for about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide from U.S. motor vehicles, power plants and other industry has increased on average by about 1 percent a year since 1990.

Now that Democrats will control the House and Senate in January after their election victories this month, there is expected to be increased pressure in Congress for mandatory limits on carbon emissions.

Reprinted from the International Herald Tribune

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Public Radio International's program The World did a segment today on the growing trend by consumer's to purchase carbon credits as a means for offsetting emissions from activities like air travel. You can listen to the show by clicking here.

Carbon credits are meant to offset the greenhouse gas pollution of jets by funding renewable energy projects. However, the "vendors" of these carbon credits do not always provide clear details explaining how these funds will actually be put to use.

• What types of carbon offset projects does your organization fund? Some services plant trees. Others subsidize solar power systems.
• What is the cost per ton of offset carbon dioxide? Current prices vary from US$4-30 per metric ton. So your dollars will be more effective with a lower $/ton.
  
• What are the specific projeccts that your organization is currently funding?
• Are these projects already viable or are my dollars necessary make sure they happen? Make sure your dollars are being invested in projects that need community support, as opposed to those that are already sufficiently supported by governments and large organizations.
  
• How much of the dollar amount purchased will actually go to the carbon neutralization project? Just like with charitable donations, it's a good idea to know how efficiently your dollars will be used. Purchase credits from organizations that have a solid track record of getting a high percentage of the dollars received in to carbon offset projects.
  

If you'd like to learn more about purchasing carbon credits, here are a few links to 3rd-party resources that may help you evaluate your options:

• Ecosystem Marketplace Carbon Credit Pricing Trends
  
• EcoBusinessLink's Carbon Offset Price Survey
• Ask the Climate Expert's Flying Green with Expedia and Travelocity
• Ask the Climate Expert's Where Should I Go to Become Carbon Neutral?

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

BEIJING - The world is not doing enough to combat global warming which, left unchecked, could trigger a mass movement of people and have serious consequences for security, the United Nation's environment chief said on Thursday.

"For those of us who look at the science and look at the indicators, it's not enough yet, but it is more than we would have hoped for maybe a few years ago," Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, said.

In an interview with Reuters, he raised the possibility of climate refugees and the huge disruption this could cause.

Experts have said that millions of people in densely populated, low-lying, developing countries such as Bangladesh and parts of China, Indonesia and Vietnam might be forced to move by rising sea levels.

In the South Pacific, this has already begun to occur in some low-lying islands.

"If global warming trends continue at the moment, and the models suggest that they are and maybe doing so more rapidly, they will have significant impact on where people can live, grow food and whether people will have to leave," he added.

"We will have disease spreading and it will have implications in terms of global trade, perhaps," Steiner said in an interview on the sidelines of a maritime protection forum in Beijing.

"Nations that don't play their part in terms of a climate regime -- how do they work with nations who are investing in setting their CO2 emissions?" he added, referring to carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas released by burning fossil fuels in transport and smoke-stack industries.

"The potential for conflict arising from the consequences of global warming are major trends that we now see," said the diplomat, who took up his current position in June.


REEFS A PERFECT EXAMPLE

One area particularly threatened by climate change and rising temperatures is the world's coral reefs, an important fishing and tourism resource that the United Nations estimates has an annual economic value of US$30 billion.

Since the late 1990s, when unusually high water temperatures killed off up to 90 percent of reefs in some parts of the world, there have been signs of recovery, according to a new UN report released on Thursday.

But reef recovery after so-called bleaching episodes depends on clean water, and in Asia and East Africa up to 90 percent of sewage is discharged directly into rivers and the sea, the report said.

"If you ever wanted a sign that something happening up in the atmosphere can have a fundamental impact even on an ecosystem we know relatively little about, you have it with coral reefs," said the Oxford-educated Steiner, former head of the World Conservation Union.

World environment ministers meet next month in the Kenyan capital Nairobi for talks on climate change to search for ways to map out longer-term cuts in greenhouse gases once the first phase of the Kyoto climate change pact runs out in 2012.

Last year's Kyoto meeting in the Canadian city Montreal set no deadlines for negotiations but some want a clearer timetable on the next phase of cuts.

"I think industrialised nations and developing nations are coming close to the point where they recognise that the time has really run out in looking for impasses," he said.

"Nairobi is going to be a litmus test on whether governments are seriously addressing this challenge," added Steiner.

"The notion of a contested phenomenon is really no longer there. It is universally acknowledged that climate change is occuring, that global warming is occuring and that we must act," said the Brazil-born German national.

"We can only act as an international community."

Story by Ben Blanchard
Reprinted from http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=38588

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Dear Friend,

Amazing! Truly Amazing!

Thanks to the extraordinary help of our Action Network, we've put 607 Congressional candidates on the record on global warming, including at least one candidate in 225 of the 435 House races and 31 of the 33 Senate races.

But that still leaves scores of opportunities to get even more candidates on the record.

You can help us promote this campaign. Ask your candidates where they stand.

So far, 51% of the candidates support a national cap on global warming pollution compared with less than 16% of the candidates who still doubt the science.

That means 84% of the candidates are either with us already or open to solutions on global warming. This makes our job very clear – get all the persuadable candidates to vote with us next year.

The extraordinary results of this campaign prove two powerful truths:

• First, as we already knew, the Environmental Defense Action Network is a force to be reckoned with in our efforts to pass a national cap on global warming pollution!

• Second, there is clear and growing momentum among national leaders to finally take meaningful action to fight global warming.

But even with momentum on our side, we must keep up the pressure. There's still time to make sure every Congressional candidate hears from us on global warming.

Here are two steps you can take right now:

1. Put your candidate on the record - It's not too late to get your Congressional candidates on the record. Every candidate we get on the record now is someone we can strategically reach out to when the new Congress is sworn in next year.
2. Take our survey - We'd like to get you on the record, too. Where does global warming rank as an electoral issue for you?

These are critical times for the future of our planet. No matter the results of the election in a few weeks, we have our work cut out to pass a meaningful bill with a mandatory national cap on global warming pollution.

One thing's for sure, with you and the rest of our online Action Network in our corner, we've got a powerful grassroots team ready to keep the pressure on. With your help, I have no doubt that we'll win this fight.

Thank you for everything you do,

Steve Cochran
Director, Global Warming Campaign

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

VIRGIN ATLANTIC CHAIRMAN SIR RICHARD BRANSON UNVEILS PLANS TO CUT CARBON EMISSIONS FROM AVIATION BY UP TO 25%

SOURCE: Virgin Atlantic - 27 Sep 2006

The Chairman of Virgin Atlantic, Sir Richard Branson, today called on the global aviation industry to develop a shared solution to the growing issue of climate change. The move follows Virgin Group's plans to invest $3billion in renewable energy initiatives over the next ten years.

Speaking in New York, Sir Richard revealed that he has written to other airlines, including British Airways, American Airlines and Easyjet; engine and aircraft manufacturers such as Rolls Royce and Boeing; and airport operators including BAA in the UK, urging them to support a new cross-industry forum which will help to deliver practical ways of tackling climate change.

In his letter to aviation industry leaders, Sir Richard writes, "We need to accelerate the pace at which we reduce aviation's impact on the environment. We cannot ignore that aviation does create environmental problems (around 2% of global CO2 emissions), although equally it produces significant economic and social benefits. (8% of the world's GDP)"

As a first step towards sustainable aviation, Virgin Atlantic today set out its global vision for radically more efficient aircraft movements around the world's busiest airports. These changes would mean that aircraft would burn considerably less fuel and emit much lower levels of CO2, dramatically improving air quality on the ground and in the air.

At the heart of its vision is the creation of "starting grids" for all aircraft departures. A starting grid is a holding area, close to the runway, consisting of several parking bays for aircraft. It means that aircraft can be towed closer to a runway before take-off, substantially reducing the time that engines need to be running.

After being towed by a small tug from its stand, an aircraft would only start its engines once on the "starting grid", around 10 minutes before actual take-off. This would substantially reduce the amount of time aircraft need to taxi with their engines running and the time spent queuing before take off. A "starting grid" also reduces congestion around stands, meaning aircraft that have recently landed wouldn't have to wait, with their engines running, to get onto the stand. Aircraft arriving could also turn off their engines after five minutes and be towed to their stand, saving considerable extra CO2.

The "starting grid" system would make airport movements much more efficient and would reduce fuel consumption and on-the-ground carbon emissions by over 50% ahead of take-off at London's Heathrow airport for Virgin Atlantic aircraft, and by nearly 90% for Virgin Atlantic flights at JFK Airport in New York. It would also mean that an aircraft flying from JFK to Heathrow could carry around two tonnes less weight in the air, which would mean that the amount of fuel burnt would be considerably less, reducing CO2 emissions even further.

Towing aircraft closer to the runway has substantial implications for local communities too. They would benefit from much lower noise levels because of aircraft taxi-ing without their engines running, and from dramatically cleaner air on the ground.

Virgin Atlantic pilots are also trained in a method of descent called "Continuous Descent Approach." This involves aircraft beginning their descent from high altitude much earlier, leading to a slower and smoother approach before landing. This earlier descent means that aircraft descend at a more efficient speed, therefore reducing fuel burn. Virgin Atlantic believes that all air traffic control authorities should adopt this approach, saving considerable CO2 emissions.

As part of its sustainable aviation strategy, Virgin Atlantic is also reducing the weight of each of its aircraft. It is painting the exterior of its planes with lighter paint, creating lighter fittings onboard, changing oxygen bottles from metal to carbon-fibre, and it is now using cargo bins made from lighter, but stronger carbon-fibre materials, rather than metal. The airline is even seeking to remove empty champagne and beer bottles, the contents of which have been drunk before leaving the stand, so they can be recycled before the plane leaves for its destination. These measures save fuel and reduce CO2 emissions further.

Sir Richard also said the "mess of European air traffic control is punishing the environment, with 35 different air traffic control organizations, compared with just one in America." He called for plans for a single European sky, which would optimise air routings by aircraft and improve environmental performance further. IATA, the International Air Transport Association, predicts that 12% of global CO2 emissions by aircraft would be saved if air traffic control systems were more efficient.

Sir Richard added: "What we're suggesting would save over 150 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year. With global warming, the world is heading for a catastrophe. The aviation industry must play its part in averting that. Airlines, airports, air traffic controllers and governments should seize these initiatives and ensure they're all implemented within two years. If they do so, up to 25% of the world's aviation emissions can be cut. The savings in fuel costs can then be ploughed back into further initiatives to reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions, and into savings for passengers."

The initiatives, which have been developed over the last year, follow a recent climate seminar in California chaired by the state Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in which senior business leaders, including Sir Richard Branson, promised to help cut global emissions.

Commenting on the Virgin Atlantic initiatives, Governor Schwarzenegger, said: "I applaud the creative example Virgin Atlantic has set in moving towards towing planes from push-back to the end of the runway. This is a perfect example of the kind of practical solution we need to be pursuing globally."

Steve Ridgway, Chief Executive of Virgin Atlantic, added: "Although Virgin Atlantic supports an emissions trading scheme, climate change will only be tackled markedly by a reduction in carbon emissions themselves. As an airline, we have a duty to continue to reduce our environmental footprint and that is what we are encouraging our pilots, our engineering staff and all of our people to do. We will be announcing further measures in the next few months to demonstrate how Virgin Atlantic is taking the industry lead on the issue of sustainability."

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

SACRAMENTO, CA (09/25/06) -- Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles' emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.

"Global warming is causing significant harm to California's environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing," said Lockyer. "Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis."

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit.

The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing "millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide," a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a "public nuisance" is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.

As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank "among the world's largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California," according to the complaint.

"Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens," the complaint alleges. "California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future." Dealing with global warming's harmful effects, the complaint adds, "will almost certainly cost millions more."

The filing comes as Lockyer fights the auto industry's attempt to invalidate California's landmark global warming regulations curbing tailpipe emissions. In their federal-court lawsuit, the automakers claim the regulations, adopted in 2005 through legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Fran Pavley, are pre-empted by federal law. Lockyer is defending the rules against the industry's legal challenge.

Lockyer noted the Bush Administration's inaction on global warming has forced California and other states to take action on their own. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a lawsuit filed by Lockyer, 11 other Attorneys General, two cities and major environmental groups challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Numerous parties have submitted amicus briefs supporting the states, including climate scientists, three former EPA Administrators, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and environmental and religious groups.

In addition, Lockyer, along with nine other state Attorneys General, the District of Columbia and the City of New York, filed a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the Bush Administration's new fuel economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. That complaint alleges the rules fail to address the effects on the environment and global warming.

California is particularly vulnerable to global warming impacts. According to a report recently submitted by the Climate Action Team to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, the consequences of climate change in California will be "severe."

"We are seeing the harmful impacts of global warming today, and if we continue with 'business as usual,' we can expect to see more and larger impacts in the future," said Lockyer. "As a coastal state, an agricultural state, and a state that relies on its Sierra snow pack, California has an enormous stake in acting now to combat global warming."

The complaint is available for download here.

Reprinted from http://www.caprep.com/0906026.htm.

Labels: California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

This fall Al Gore will begin training more than 1,000 individuals to make a version of his now-renowned presentation to groups in their local communities. The Climate Project will administer these training sessions. The training will focus on the science behind the presentation Al Gore has been making for more than two decades as seen in the film An Inconvenient Truth. This program will help trainees to become presenters.

Training sessions will begin in late September in Nashville, Tennessee, and continue through January. Each training session will take place over a two-day period and will be free of charge to those applicants who are selected. Trainees will receive a “Tool Kit” containing a handbook, handouts for their audiences, presentations, and all other materials necessary to make a presentation of their own. Trainees will be expected to pay for their own flights or transportation, accommodation and any additional meals. We will provide a list of accommodation options and other local information. Receptions, other meals, and local transportation will be provided
during the sessions.

Each trainee will be asked to commit to making a minimum of ten (10) presentations over a one-year period following the completion of their training and to meet other reasonable requirements which will be outlined prior to the training program. If you wish to apply online, please go to The Climate Project or contact:

Jenny Clad
Project Director
The Climate Project
c/o The Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee
P.O. Box 440225
Nashville, TN 37244
info@theclimateproject.org

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Arizona Sen. John McCain will visit Greenland, Turkey, Georgia, Montenegro and Italy as part of a Senate delegation headed overseas during Congress' summer break.

McCain and the other Republican senators want to observe the effects of global warming while in Greenland. They also will attend an A-list economic and political conference at a swanky northern Italian resort.

McCain and U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., favor legislation to cap industrial emissions in an effort to curtail global warming. In 2003, the two introduced the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which was defeated in a 38-60 vote last year.

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Mel Martinez, R-Fla., Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and John Sununu, R-N.H., are slated to go on the congressional trip with McCain. The Greenland to Italy trip will start later this month and run through early September, McCain's office said Wednesday.

McCain has been crisscrossing the U.S. in recent months campaigning for fellow Republicans in key races and will continue those efforts through the November elections. The Arizonan is expected to run for president again in 2008 and is courting voters and key GOP supporters in battleground states such as Iowa, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, New Hampshire and California.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

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

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Monday that he will "do everything I can to protect our coast" and will fight against the offshore oil bill the Senate is poised to vote on this week, as well as any weakening of the 25-year moratorium on coastal drilling. In a teleconference hosted by Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, the governor echoed the Club's concern that if the Senate bill passes, it would be merged with a House bill sponsored by Representative Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) that could "lead to the weakening of the moratorium that has protected our California coasts for 25 years."

The governor touted alternative fuels, new technologies, hydrogen fueling stations, hybrid and electric cars as better solutions. "For anyone to think that this will bring gas prices down is making a big mistake."

AUDIO: Hear an excerpt from Schwarzenegger's remarks. (MP3)

Republican Schwarzenegger and the Sierra Club have not always seen eye to eye - but they are joining forces to protect our nation's coasts from becoming oil fields.

The Senate bill would open up a huge chunk of Florida's Gulf Coast to oil and drilling, and give away more than a third of the billions of dollars in oil leasing revenues over the next 50 years to four coastal states - Florida, Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana - even though the drilling would take place in federal waters.

Pope said he was delighted Governor Schwarzenegger was joining the Sierra Club and others to oppose this bill and expose it as ruse to open up every inch of the nation's coastline to potential drilling.

The governor had to return to a health summit he was chairing in Los Angeles, but Pope and others fielded reporters' questions. One reporter said that the secretary of the Interior and oil industry executives told him the Senate bill is not a precursor to drill off the coast of California - "You're basically saying they're lying?"

Pope hesitated, then said, "Yes, I am. If they want to write a bill that protects California, they know how."

While states would still have the power to block drilling, Pope said the Pombo bill would give the oil industry an advantage in every state - each state legislature would have to pass two bill every five years, one to stop oil drilling, another to stop gas drilling.

Other speakers in the teleconference included Dan Jacobson, from Environment California, who emphasized that energy efficiency and renewable energy are the cheapest and cleanest ways to generate energy, Mark Ferrulo of Florida PIRG, who expressed concerns about how the bill would be dangerous for Florida, and the Sierra Club's Melinda Pierce, who talked about how Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are leading the opposition.

The first vote on the bill is scheduled for Wednesday.

Reprinted from the Sierra Club Website.

Labels: arnold schwarzenegger, California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Heat waves around the nation's capitol seem to be causing some elected officials to behave in a peculiar manner. It would seem that a handful of politicians are even taking notice of mounting global warming concerns.

The House Government Reform Committee began an inquiry into allegations that White House officials edited reports on global warming to play down the threat it poses.

Retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords (pictured) announced his bill to reverse the U.S. growth in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases from burning coal and transportation fuels.

The House committee chairman, Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, said they will request data from the White House and hold hearings into whether the White House Council on Environmental Quality intentionally diluted scientific information on the threat of global warming.

Democrats and Republicans took turns criticizing each other, with President Bush's senior environmental adviser fending off attacks on the administration's wait-and-see approach.

"The Bush administration has very little credibility on this issue," Waxman said. Last month, he proposed phased-in cuts in U.S. greenhouse gases over the next four decades.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House environmental council, seems adept at maintaing his composure under extreme stress. He said Bush's efforts to slow the growth rate in carbon dioxide and cut methane emissions globally go "far beyond what's been done before. "Step one is to slow the growth," Connaughton said.

Assuming the administration has a plan, let's hope there is time for Step Two.

Scientists told the House committee that humans are causing most of the earth's warming and the planet is 8 degrees to 10 degrees hotter than it was thousands of years ago. Some voiced concern with the pace of U.S. efforts.

"The fact that we don't have a plan is really disturbing," said Judith Curry, head of Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev today urged the US and Australia to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, saying the world's "reservoir of life" was rapidly shrinking.

Australia and the US are the only major industrialised countries that have not signed the Kyoto treaty, which mandates specific cutbacks in emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by 2012 in 35 countries.

"Our reservoir of life is shrinking," Gorbachev said from the eastern Australian city of Brisbane, where he is heading an international environmental conference. "Before it is too late I think we need to put our environmental house in order."

Gorbachev said the US had behaved like a "stubborn animal" over the Kyoto agreement, and urged Australia to show leadership by joining the pact.

Australia's conservative Prime Minister John Howard is a staunch supporter of US President George Bush, and has thrown his country's weight behind several US foreign policy decisions.

"That's even more reason for Australia to sign the protocol," the former Soviet leader said. "Then that closeness will play a positive role. If that closeness is used only for aggravating mistakes such as the war in Iraq that's not positive, that's not useful."

The 2006 Earth Dialogues conference runs until Monday, and includes presentations by environmental activists from around the world.

Gorbachev said he believed the forum was important to mobilise public support for dealing with global warming.

"World public opinion is now considered a superpower in its own right, and we have a responsibility to make use of this power to drive positive action for a sustainable future," he said.

Meanwhile, Gorbachev said that the wave of Mideast violence is an example of politics lagging behind the pace of global change.

"More than ever we need to build a strong public consensus in support of peaceful, just and sustainable solutions to the crises which threaten our future," Gorbachev said in a statement. "The current violence in the Middle East is yet another demonstration of politics lagging behind the pace of global change.

"If the leaders of the world's most powerful states lapse back and again see military power as a viable means of resolving disputes, then we should not be surprised if other states also consider it a legitimate course. We must stop the violence, and reinstate effective multilateralism."

Gorbachev's pioneering program of perestroika, or restructuring, caused the first cracks in the Soviet empire, leading to its disintegration in 1991 and the end of the Cold War.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Calilfornia's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation's most far-reaching initiatives to curb global warming.

The Governator's plan to various interests negotiating legislation that would map California's route toward a gradual rollback of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020, a potential 25 percent reduction.

Schwarzenegger did send a strong signal to corporate industry by hand-picking his Climate Action Board and empowering that body with the authority to delay the proposed deadline for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions if state regulations prove too onerous for businesses.

"It's essential that an emission reduction system have an economic safety valve to ensure the plan protects public health and the environment, is technologically feasible and is not detrimental to the California economy," said Linda Adams, the governor's negotiator in environmental areas.

"The core elements of the bill - mandatory reporting of greenhouse-gas emissions and enforceable limits on greenhouse-gas pollution - have fairly strong support," said Karen Douglas, a negotiator for Environmental Defense, one of the nation's largest environmental advocacy groups.

Researchers say that current global warming trends could deplete water supplies and dry out forests, adding new problems to California's ecosystem and business community.

"California, without question, has a responsibility to address climate change," said Adams, secretary of the state Environmental Protection Agency. "We must do our share to protect our public health, our water supply, our coastline and industry."

California, a global economic power that ranks 12th in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, must lead the way, the governor and legislative leaders agree.

Key elements of the governor's proposed amendments to Assembly Bill 32 include:

• The policy-setting Climate Action Board would be composed almost exclusively of the governor's top agency chiefs.
  
  
• Much of the oversight responsibility would be distributed throughout various departments that would be assigned to monitor specific industries.
  
  
• The new board would establish by June 1, 2008, a set of still-unspecified reduction goals for 2012 and 2016 to ensure progress toward the 2020 target.
  
  
• Industry could secure a reprieve if the 2020 reduction level proves to be harmful to the state's economy.
  
  
• Businesses would be given compliance options, including buying credit for reducing emissions elsewhere in the state, if on-site cuts are not feasible or if the administration's future studies find that the rules cost jobs.

Some industry officials have urged rejection of California-only regulations, insisting that the state's agenda is too aggressive. They say mandatory limits will burden the state's economy with higher costs and more regulation.

"This is a global issue, not a California issue," said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. "What makes you think that if you drive up the price of energy and fuel you're going to create jobs in California?"

Oil companies claim that they would have to reduce production by 17 percent to meet the proposed standards - the equivalent of shutting down three plants at a time of tighter supplies and spiking prices at the pump.

But Stanford University economist James L. Sweeney maintains that the net effect of new regulation will be small, whether positive or negative. Caps with incentives could reduce emissions "without any significant damage to the economy if you design the rules of the game well," he said.

Labels: arnold schwarzenegger, California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Consumers in California will soon be given te option to pay a little bit more for their utilities to offset their carbon dioxide emissions.

The non-profit California Climate Action Registry was set up by the state six years ago to encourage corporations and government agencies to track and reduce their emissions. The Forest Protocols program will allow consumers to pay to preserve enough trees to offset their personal carbon emissions.

The registry has calculated how much the timber industry loses by allowing trees to grow longer and bigger - past the time they're normally harvested. The industry would then be compensated by other companies that buy carbon credits - or shares of the trees - to offset their carbon emissions.

The Pacific Forest Trust manages the five parcels of timberland owned by the Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation, and they jointly registered the 2,100-acre property with the state. Negotiations are underway to set the prices for its carbon credits.

For example, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in January asked the California Public Utilities Commission to let it start a program next year where customers could choose to pay about 3% more on each monthly bill, with the money earmarked to preserve trees in a registered forest.

The utility pumps about 5.3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year to supply the electricity and natural gas used by a typical household. If the homeowner opted to pay about $4.31 each month to be invested in forests, the trees would store an equivalent amount of carbon.

"It would cost them about $4.31 a month to become climate neutral," said Wendy Pulling, PG&E's director of environmental policy.

PG&E is the first utility in the nation seeking such a program for its five million electric and 4.2 million natural gas customers, Pulling said. The company serves about 14 million people in northern and central California.

If the utilities commission approves the plan later this year, PG&E projects that about 5% of its customers would participate, generating about $20 million annually. That would support a number of trees equal to taking 350,000 cars off the road, Pulling said.

The money would be invested in forests like the van Eck property in Humboldt County, which is the first to start sending carbon storage information to the state registry.

Go, California! Where are the feds??

Labels: California, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

French President Jacques Chirac (pictured) issued a stark warning to his G8 partners, saying "humanity is dancing on a volcano" and urging them to live up to commitments to combat global warming. The Group of Eight (aka G8) represents the planets largest industrialized countries.

While his analogy may prove obscure, at best, his proactive stance represents the global conflict that is occurring around CO2 emissions, which pitting pro-corporate governments like Bush administration against "pro-humanity" advocates.

The G8 recently held discussions that involved extensive discussions on "energy security", which seemingly is defined as 'open, transparent, efficient and competitive markets'. This is political speak for making the energy companies more efficient to lower costs, rather than weaning populations off of higher polluting sources of energy.

"We cannot discuss energy security while standing still on climate change," Chirac told the leaders of Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and Russia at their summit in Saint Petersburg.

"I regret that the United States is not taking part. But all the others must stick to their commitments." President Bush rejected the draft Kyoto treaty in 2001 on grounds that its binding commitments on reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be too costly for the US economy.

Chirac's remarks were seen as targeting Canada, where the new conservative government has shown itself to be skeptical toward the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto signatories have committed themselves to limiting their earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. The leaders issued a statement affirming their willingness "to work to reduce greenhouse gas and deal effectively with the challenge of climate change."

If only willingness were enough. Perhaps, the G8 leaders should be referred to as "G8 Willingnessers". That may be more apros pos.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

In search of industry support, Al Gore presented at a conference Wednesday hosted by Wal-Mart at its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters.

Dubbed the quarterly sustainability network meeting, the conference included Gore's presentation on the dangers of global warming, as well as one from officials of the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Evangelical Environmental Network.

The meeting also included discussions with Wal-Mart's suppliers on how sustainability can impact the supply chain and benefit the customer, according to the statement from the world's largest retailer. Suppliers who were at the meeting included Procter & Gamble, Sara Lee Apparel and Paramount Classics.

"We are all passionate about making real progress regarding the environment," said a statement from Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott. "By working together, we can help each other save money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pass the savings on to our customers. Sustainability is good for the environment, and it's also good for business."

In addition to his remarks to the conference, Gore screened his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat of global warming.

Earlier this year Wal-Mart announced that it would seek to eliminate 30 percent of the energy used by stores, with the corporate goal of eventually being fueled 100 percent by renewable energy. The retailer also plans to eliminate 25 percent of the solid waste from U.S. stores in the next three years, with the corporate goal of producing zero waste.

Additionally, Wal-Mart is targeting increased efficiency of its truck fleet by 25 percent over the next three years, with efficiency doubled within 10 years except in the North, where Wal-Mart utilizes white reflective roof membranes, resulting in a 10 percent lower cooling load.

Labels: Al Gore, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

According to the Philipines Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretary Angelo T. Reyes pictured), the country has granted country approval for eight projects qualifying for the Kyoto Protocol-Clean Development Mechanism's (CDM) carbon credits as the projects will help cut global warming with 235,442 metric tons (MT) of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

For more details, you can read the complete article on the Manilla Bulletin.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

The BBC is sponsoring a global Climate Change Experiment. Similar to well-known SETI project, this project is using the processing power of hundreds of thousands of client computers to help model changes in the planet's temeratures.

To learn more about the experiment visit the Experiment Homepage.

And, if you are ready to put those wasted computer cycles to use go the Download Page.

Here's to the Brits... Cheers!

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Tom Brokaw, the former NBC anchorman, hosted Global Warming: What You Need to Know tonight on the Discovery Channel.

Brokaw, says he was inspired to get involved after seeing the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth on global warming. Brokaw is no stranger to environmental issues ; his wife, Meredith, is VP of Conservation International.

The program - which was made by Discovery and the BBC - suggests that humankind is contributing to a rapid warming of the Earth's atmopshere with potentially disastrous results, including rising sea levels, hurricanes, and drought.

The show encourages people to take means to slow the rate of global warming, such as conserving energy both on a small scale (unplugging electric appliances when out of use) and large scale (promoting energy-efficient mass transportation).

The documentray will play throughout the month of July. Check Discovery.com for upcoming airings.

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

When jobs are on the line, do we subsidize them at the cost of the environment? Or is market demand to blame? What can we (as the individual) do to change this--if at all? What are the solutions for the long-term sustainability of our oceans?

Labels: carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming

Hi. My name is Mike Taus and I live in Kailua on the Windward side of Oahu in Hawaii. My wife, two daughters and I moved here almost a year ago from California mostly to escape the toxins and find a peaceful place.

Last night we had a sitter, so my wife and I decided to go see the Al Gore movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Truthfully, I had been eager to see it for some time. Some would say that I am a liberal, others might think me moderate and a few might even consider me conservative. I consider myself political only to the extent the important issues are at stake. I am disenchanted with the politics of the day and certainly do not follow the ongoing battle closely. But, I have been moved from time to take action.

In my opinion, An Inconvenient Truth is not a political movie. True, it is Al Gore's story/mission that is central to this movie. But I tend to agree with Gore's statement that this is a moral issue.

We, the voting population of the United States -- and perhaps only a subset of us with the time and resources to act -- are responsible for affecting change. The sort of change I am referring to is the reversal of a trend that has been growing for more than 100 years. This is not a trend of evil corporations, as some on the left might characterize the issue.

In my estimation, we as consumers are just beginning to awaken from a 100 year binge. A binge of consumption that began, when we as a civilization believed that nature’s boundaries were far too limitless for our actions to have material consequences.

We are all innocent and blameless in this process. Like an alcoholic, who began consuming innocently and over time becomes consumed himself, we must awaken to the realization that we have the potential to do massive and perhaps irreversible harm. Unfortunately, it often takes a catastrophic event to awaken an addict. Similarly, it may take a global catastrophe to awaken the world.

Today, we see the by-product of our industrialization all around us. We consume fish with elevated mercury levels. We dig deep wholes in remote mountains to bury away our nuclear waste. We have left to waste vast swathes of forest that will take centuries to repair, if ever. In many places, we breath air that is thick with smog. We drink water out of bottles to avoid ordinary drinking water.

But, perhaps the scariest of these by-products is the pervasive molecule of carbon-dioxide or CO2. Yes, the same stuff that we exhale with each breath and that is consumed by plants in exchange for oxygen, seems to be directly linked with the rise in global temperatures, the melting of ice caps and the siginificant increase in unusual weather patterns.

If you are not convinced that CO2 is to blame, that is okay. I cannot say with 100% certainty the this is true. Scientists rely upon correlations and this case the data seems to support a stron correlation. The two graphs below do a fair job of illustruting this connection:

For some, this may not be proof of anything. For others it may be convincing. For me it is a start. For those that have seen the movie, you may recall a prediction that ocean levels could rise as much as 20 feet. My home in Kailua is about 8 feet above sea level. For hundreds of years, people have moved close to the ocean for commerce, weather, etc. The consequences of a increasing global temperatures and rising ocean levels are obvious. So, we have a clear moral obligation to investigate this issue fully and act accordingly.

More importantly, we are morally obligated to begin acting in such a way as to reduce CO2 emissions before we can prove with 100% certainty that this link is factual. We cannot wait, because we risk too much.

I ask anyone who is interested to get involved here or elsewhere. All sources, facts and opinions are welcome.

Labels: Al Gore, carbon dioxide emissions, environmental activism, global warming