His argument below:

It is mathematically impossible that peak oil will solve climate change.

Although oil is the biggest single source of energy-related greenhouse gases, coal and gas combined are bigger still, and the expected growth in their emissions would overwhelm any reduction from oil.

As I demonstrate in The Last Oil Shock using the International Energy Agency’s “business-as-usual” forecast, even if oil production peaks in 2010 and immediately starts to fall at 3% a year, total emissions would still rise by 25%, reaching 32 billion tonnes in 2030.

Yet by that time, we need to be well on the way to at least a 60% cut in emissions.

In fact peak oil could even make emissions worse if it drives us to exploit the wrong kinds of fuel.

Burning rainforest and peatlands to create palm oil plantations for biofuels releases vast amounts of CO2, and has already made Indonesia, according to some ways of calculating it, the world’s third biggest emitter after the US and China.

Synthetic transport fuels made from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process emit even more carbon on a well-to-wheels basis than conventional crude; and when the feedstock is coal, the emissions double.

None of these alternatives are likely to fill the gap left by conventional crude – at least, not in time.

But because they are so much more carbon intensive, it is quite easy to conjure scenarios in which we still suffer fuel shortages while emitting even more CO2 than in the current business-as-usual forecast – the worst of all possible worlds.

One common sense solution left out of his equation is the use of electricity, which is not all the time, generated using coal or Uranium. Solar, wind and tidal conversion if implemented can and should be able to generate the required capacity to power our planet. If only we are able to overcome our resistance to change and the relentless pursuit of bigger and more polluting lifestyle.

To make matters worse, the DOE research team also determined that the computer dashboard readings for fuel economy – which most drivers use to base their judgment rather than manually calculating the actual mpg -inflates mileage numbers by somewhere between 10 to 20 percent.

On the brighter side, the testing dispelled a persistent myth that the rechargeable batteries need to be frequently replaced.

Hybrids, once thought out to be “the solution” to lessen the pollution burden of gasoline hungry Americans just might be a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. My contention, “a market squarely focused on Hybrid is limited and lacks technology diversification. We need to develop small cars with small engines, reducing the weight of vehicles by using more plastic, and stopping marketing SUVs as safer vehicles.” Hybrids, well, if that is how Diaz and DiCaprio feel connected to planet Earth, let em pass.

Originally posted at environment.thoughtmechanics.com

Source: Hybridcars.com

 

Tags: Oil, Hybrid, DOE, Engineered, Activism, Engineer, Sustainability, Environment, Energy, Technology

The G8 is clear on one thing though, they all agree to disagree on every environmental issue in question. For example, on “Diversifying Energy Mix”, all except Germany were ‘for’ more nuclear power. Funny how the word “proliferation” falls on deaf ear when the countries involved are the world richest. The Kyoto protocol was briefly touched, the US is still playing hard to get while clearly passing the blame on to China and India.

Granteds that short meeting during the weekend seldom produce usable and rational treaties, especially when they are all so much more consumed with topics like the Middle East and North Korea.

You can find the Global Energy Security document here.

 

Tags: News, Nuclear, Global Warming, Bush, Money, Hybrid, Activism, Carbon, Sustainability, Economics, politics, Air Pollution, Energy, G8, Kyoto

 

Get the L.A. Times Op-ed here.

 

 

 

Tags: News, Global Warming, EPA, Ozone, Bush, Hybrid, Activism, politics, greenhouse, OSHA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court agreed will hear arguments from attorneys for the Sierra Club and the White House as to whether or not the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming. The decision means the court will address whether the administration’s decision to rely on voluntary measures to combat climate change are legal under federal clean air laws.

David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club said “This is the whole ball of wax. This will determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to regulate greenhouse gases from cars and whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide from power plants.” In response, John Felmy, chief economist of the American Petroleum Institute (API) said,  “Fundamentally, we don’t think carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and so we don’t think these attempts are a good idea.”

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, excess carbon dioxide is. It’s like drinking, when consumed in limited amount it helps your heart; when binged, it’ll hits your liver, kidney and your head. Obviously API will have issues if CO2 were labeled a pollutant, after all, their bottom line relies on sale of automobiles which fuel consumption of petroleum products.

My doubt however is not how clever the two groups lawyers are, but rather how the Supreme Court, who’s members are political appointees, would rule against the very people who put them in place (read Bush). I remember in 2001, when the Republicans were taken to the Supreme Court, they won an election with less popular votes than the Democrats. Need I say more?

As the primary trade association of that industry, API represents more than 400 members involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry.

Photo Courtesy: CMU.edu

 

Tags: Urban, News, Global Warming, EPA, Sierra Club, Oil, Bush, Hybrid, Activism, Carbon, weather, Sustainability, Environment, Economics, politics, API, greenhouse, Supreme Court

GMOs are not new, they have been in use since the early 70’s. Just as old is the controversy that surrounds the science of genetic engineering. Noteworthy of it all is the transgenic plant group, which would make the top 10 on most environmentalists’ hit list. Transgenic plants are engineered using recombinant DNA techniques to create plants with new characteristics, which might include developing better quality products or making it more resilient to diseases. Transgenic plants are increasing finding its way into pharmaceuticals. Companies such as Controlled Pharming Ventures grow crop, which are sometimes referred to as pharma-crops, for producing proteins, which eventually end up in prescription drugs.

The potential of cross-pollination of such modified plants with those found in nature poses the biggest threat to this technology. In 2002, a corn, which was genetically modified to create a pig vaccine, spread to a nearby soybean field resulted in the government suing ProdiGene. Friends of the Earth (FOE) has urged the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ban all “open air” plantings of pharma-crops, saying a mistake by a biotech company could result in consumers “eating other people’s presecription drugs in our corn flakes.” Currently, most pharma-crops are being grown underground, I mean literally underground in old abandoned mines. This will provide a physical barrier preventing the possibility of cross-pollination and also shortens maturation time (to 70 days as compared to the 120 days it would naturally).
 
The most controversial products that never made it would undoubtedly be the Golden Rice, creation of by Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, working with Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. This product promised to alleviate Vitamin A deficiency in dominantly rice consuming third-world.

The application of this technology backfired when groups like Greenpeace working with local activists pointed out that the genetically altered rice was no better than rice that weren’t milled. (as a side note, Greenpeace opposes all GMOs). But we have probably not seen the last of it, research on Golden Rice version 3.0 is still underway.

In conclusion, GMOs are here to stay, there are countless products that contain GMO synthesized compounds, which we use knowingly or otherwise. Like any new technology, consumers will determine its market, but only time can determine its fate.

Footnote: USDA is a research leader in everything from human nutrition to new crop technologies that allow us to grow more food and fiber using less water and pesticides.

Photo Courtesy: Wikipedia & Marketplace 

 

Tags: Greenpeace, FOE, Hybrid, USDA, Agriculture, Genetic, Engineered, GMO, GMOs, Modified, Genetically Modified Organisms

Proponents and detractors of ethanol have equally convincing arguments, but is there room for consensus?

Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol or grain alcohol, is a flammable, colorless chemical compound, one of the alcohols that is most often found in alcoholic beverages. The largest single use of ethanol is as a motor fuel and fuel additive. In America, the use of ethanol based fuel is on the rise, with the introduction of E85, which is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Click to Enlarge Image)

The production of ethanol is rather simple, and commercial scale production with alternatives like switch grass will make this venture lucrative.

Ethanol is a clean burning, high octane fuel, however it is best applied when used with a small percent of gasoline.

It is believed in some green circles that the production of ethanol takes up more energy than that derived from the end product, making ethanol an energy sink. But according to the US Department of Energy, distillation of ethanol results in surplus energy ranging anywhere between 35 and 65 percent. Also, the green house gas produced from burning ethanol started out from the atmosphere, making the net CO2 emmission zero. According to Dr. Michael S. Graboski (Colorado School of Mines) and Dr. John McClelland (National Corn Growers Association), only about 0.13 BTU of gasoline is used to produce 1 BTU of ethanol fuel. Numerous other researchers have concluded along the same lines.

On the flip side, a agricultural researcher from Cornell University has concluded that the economics of producing ethanol from corn “yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning.” He adds that “adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUs. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.”

In conclusion, I remain agnostic just as I did when I started, but I am hopeful about this fuel. There is however one thing I would like to emphasise, the only true way to conserve energy is to minimize the use of fuel, period! Happy bicycling. 

Source: EERE DOE

Footnote: The Department of Energy’s overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. The Department has four strategic goals toward achieving the mission.

Photo Courtesy: Indymedia.org & flying-chilli.com

 

Tags: News, Ethanol, Alternative Fuel, Global Warming, EPA, Oil, Money, Hybrid, DOE, EERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Bank of America to Offer Incentives to Buy Hybrids” comes, as a much needed relief to those with more conviction (to save the planet) than money. Hybrids are not of much help if one can not afford it. 
 

Bank of America to Offer Incentives to Buy Hybrids

 

BOSTON — Driving a hybrid car already means free parking at meters in one Connecticut city and reserved parking spots near the front door of a New Hampshire company. Now, some Bank of America Corp. employees will receive $3,000 cash if they buy one of the fuel-efficient vehicles.

 

On Wednesday, the bank announced the incentive program for 21,000 employees in Boston, Los Angeles and Charlotte, N.C., joining other companies and communities nationwide in pushing the hybrids.

 

Environmental officials said they hope the pilot program by the nation’s largest retail bank has broad effects.

 

“When you have a major institution like Bank of America that is involved with so many other companies, there is a spin-off effect where they inspire other companies to follow their lead,” said the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional director, Bob Varney.

 

The city of New Haven, Conn., for instance, already offers free parking at city meters for residents, while footwear and apparel maker Timberland Co., based in Stratham, N.H., created reserved parking spaces to go along with its own $3,000 cash incentive for employees who buy hybrids.

 

Google Inc., based in Mountain View, Calif., offers $5,000 cash to purchase and $2,500 to lease fuel-efficient cars — not just hybrids — that get at least 45 miles per gallon. Bank of America offers its rebate to any employee who buys a hybrid and lives within 90 miles of the three cities.

 

Anne Finucane, global marketing and corporate affairs executive for Bank of America, said her company’s program was “enlightened self interest” because it will improve local environmental quality, strengthen its appeal to job seekers and attract new customers by boosting its corporate image

 

In an interview at the company’s Charlotte, N.C., headquarters, Chief Administrative Officer Steele Alphin said, given the bank’s size, it should lead efforts to protect the environment. “Shame on us if we did not,” he said.

 

He said the company would evaluate the program in the fall to determine if it should be offered to all 202,000 of its employees.

 

The program was introduced as high gas prices spur economic worry and political posturing. House Republicans floated a proposal — quickly shot down — to give citizens $100 cash to help pay for higher fuel prices. And General Motors Corp. has tried to boost car sales in key markets by offering $2-per-gallon gas to new car buyers through the end of 2007.

 

Hybrids are powered by a gas engine and an electric motor, increasing fuel efficiency and reducing emissions. The hybrid Honda Civic, for example, gets 50 miles per gallon, compared to 34 miles per gallon for the regular Civic, according to hybridcars.com. But hybrid cars also cost more.

 

The Bank of America rebate matches a $3,000 federal tax credit for buying a hybrid. On Wednesday, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pushed a bill his administration drew up with Senate leaders that would provide a $2,000 state tax credit, and move the cost of hybrid closer to a regular car. The bill has not been passed by the House.

 

Romney said the nation must reduce dependence on oil to avoid financing sometimes hostile, oil-rich regimes, and reduce pollution. The Bank of America program shows the nation is serious about better fuel economy, he said.

 

“So what they’ve done is make an enormous statement,” Romney said. “This is going to have Detroit listening. The whole nation is going to be listening.”

 

Source: Business Week / Associated Press By Jay Lindsay 

Photo Courtesy: How Stuff Works

 

Tags: alternative fuel, oil, hybrid, hybrid cars, cars, BOA