It’s been said that “There are liars, lies and statistics”, which those who don’t know anything about statistics have led them to infer that statistics aren’t useful, which is wrong. We’ve heard all about the hacked emails that show English climate researchers, at Univ. of East Anglia talked about manipulating data and the reaction who question the existence of a global warming crisis. What we haven’t heard much of is an explanation as to why this isn’t the smoking gun that the right wing media portrays it to be.  If Glenn Beck, Hannity and the rest of the folk don’t understand how science works, and they are the only ones “explaining” the meaning of this, the whole rational world is in trouble.

First of all, science itself, by definition, is a practice that is designed to avoid just the very problem of the “Cheating Scientist”.  The first two requirements of science are “results that are both measurable and repeatable”. if this scientist and his associates fudged his numbers then the 100s or 1000s of other researchers wouldn’t have found the evidence of climate change that they’ve already documented.  Granted, some people may have used the manipulated data series, but the fact is that researchers in many different fields have done experiments within their areas of studies and most support the idea that their is a climate change crisis.  If all the scientists are wrong, because of one group in the UK, there is a lot more wrong with the world than global warning.

Whatever your opinion on the health care debate, i think you’ll agree, that it’s pushed most other public policy issues off the table. The fight against global warming is no longer a top priority.  In fact any legislation bringing in a carbon cap, doesn’t charge the largest emitters for their carbon credits and it sets the levels much higher than science suggests they need to be to stop and turn back Global Warming.  I personally think that if this is the sort of “carbon cap and trade” system that comes about, it will have little or no impact on the way most Americans live.  With or without cap and trade, it’s time to put a carbon tax on gasoline and other non-renewable fuels. What is needed now is a consumer movement toward greener products and adding a tax to gasoline, to fund green energy, via tax credits.  A movement toward renewable electricity will not only help the environment, but will also create new jobs in research, development, manufacturer, installation and maintenance of these systems

Cash for clunkers is the current raging political debate in the US.  Let’s cut away all the BS and look at what is happening: the cars being bought are on average about 10 mpg better than the clunkers (heard this on CNBC yesterday).  That means for an increase of about 40% for cars and 60% for trucks.  For a vehicle driving 20,000 miles a year, at 25mpg would use 800 gallons of fuel a year, saving about 600 gallons of fuel or 6 tons of CO2. If a car is used for 10 years (much more than average) the newer car would reduce CO2 emmissions by about 60 tons.

Yesterday, US carbon credits on the CCX traded for 40 cents, yes  $ 0.40, per ton.  So the US government is giving a $4500 rebate to protect the environment from $24 worth of CO2, about 200 times more than the market price.  So, if folks want to keep the program growing for the sake of ramping up car sales, that’s great.  Just don’t think the environmental benefit is worth the cost.

As we head toward Earth Hour here in the Americas, i’m asking why?  Why bother with an earth hour, why set it up for saturday night, local time, when most people are out socializing and enjoying their weekend.  The idea, is to “vote” for a fight against global warming by shutting off your lights for the hour .  While i’m all for consciousness raising and spreading the word, but these cute little events also tend to make people feel that they’ve done something hard, when they’re really done very little.

While i’m good with helping people take the first step, i think having a billion people sign petition/oath to strengthen the fight against global warming would be an incredible feat and would send a much louder message.  This earth hour gets “support” by abandoned buildings around the world not using power, while the lights that aren’t extinguished, most likely because they are controlled by timers or the available light will be judged as protests.   So whether you’re city is too bright or nice and dark, it’s won’t be easy to measure “the vote”.  30+ years ago, April 22nd was established as Earth Day as a way to raise conciousness and advocate for the environment.  Instead of finding more ways to make statements, how about something that focuses on making real, long term changes in the way we live.

If you were listening to President Obama’s speech before congress and the American people you may have missed it, but he did call for a carbon cap.

• “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” Obama told lawmakers in last night’s speech to Congress.
• “So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America.”

It’s important to note that he did not say what the cap would be, how soon it should start and who would be affected.  Rather he set the goal of answering these question in the years ahead.

My conclusion is that i don’t expect any legislation to pass before winter/spring 2010.  The markets seem to agree, the price of Offsets on the CCX rose just 2.5% today in reaction to the presidents speech.  If you want to change the world, don’t wait for washington, reduce, upgrade or offset to reduce your CO2 footprint.

First off, my disclosure, i’ve lived my whole life within 50 miles of the headquarters of each of the Big 3, now the Detroit 3, first in Michigan and now in Ontario.  So, i have a vested interest in the US auto companies surviving, while at the same time, i want to solve global warming.  There is an inherent conflict between the goal of saving the planet and gasoline powered cars and trucks. The only way to achieve an environmentally friendly vehicle is to create only non-emitting vehicles, most likely the electric vehicles that are starting to be launched and announced over the last year.  The transition to electric vehicles is expected to take 20 years, in the mean time, governments are increasing fleet mileage requirments to help reduce emissions.

Higher mileage requirements are on the way, the state of California has legislated it, others states have joined the standard and President Obama has weighed in with his support of the same.  Is it any surprise that the Detroit 3, Michigan’s govenor, senators and congressional deligation are less receptive to these tougher standards.  Whenever it’s come to high mileage (translate that to small) cars, Detroit has repeatedly failed to succeed in the marketplace, so the reaction in auto country is understood.  But what if we can help put Detroit in (dare i say ‘The Driver’s Seat’) an adventageous position through legislation that helps auto makers meet these standards by rewarding them for alternative energy vehicles.

My proposal is simple, reward automakers for selling rechargeable electric cars, that can run at least 40 miles without charging, whether a 100% electric or a plug-chargeable hybrid.  The idea would be to take the EPA mileage rating of a plug-in hybrid on a single tank tank of gas and let automakers double it for the purpose of calculating an overall average fleet fuel mileage.  Say the new Chevy volt can be charged up, filled with 10 gallons of gas and driven 500 miles for a average of 50 miles per gallon of gas, GM could add the sale of 1 car with a 100 mpg (50 miles x 2) to their overal fleet.  If a car was fully electric, with no gas engine, the manufacturer could take the range of the vehicle, per charge and triple it. For a 100% electric car that had a 100 mile range, the auto manufacturer who sold it could count it as a 300 mpg vehicle.  This incentivizes all auto manufactures, not only the Detroit 3, to introduce electric cars to help reach higher mileage standards, without limiting the range of hydrocarbon fueled vehicles they offer.  In short, this let’s Detroit sell SUVs and Pickups, if they can sell enough green vehicles to keep their fleet averages about the government’s minimum.

Electric vehicles are inherently more efficient than the internal combustion engine, so less CO2 is generated for each mile driven.  Electricity can be generated from large traditional power plants which are efficent to operate and limits the number of pollution sources compared to 100s of millions of gasoline powered vehicle.  Finally electric has number sources of generation including a growing number non-emitting, renewable sources.

As i write this article, the dispute between Russia’s Gazprom and the Ukraine Naftogaz is heading toward it’s second week and many contries, especially in central and southeastern Europe are suffering.  The suffering takes the form of economic losses due to fuel shortages and the human toll of the millions who rely on this gas to heat their homes and cook their food.  This crisis help focuses on the most important, non-environmental problem with fossil fuels: If you don’t have enough of the fuel in your country, you can fall victim to the whims of the market such as the $150 barrel of oil last summer and Gazprom/Naftogaz dispute today. 

The solution to these sorts of problems can be summerized in two words: Renewable Energy or even Green Energy if you prefer.  Yes, combining green power sources to replace dependence on fossil fuels allows local solutions to local problems.  In the current situation, it’s easy to cut off the supply of gas to Ukraine, but i doubt(i equivocate for humor’s sake)  the same can be done to stop the wind, sun and available biogas from supplying Ukraine’s needs. 

Since oil embargo of 1973, the facts have demonstrated that local sources of energy are more secure than those imported from far away lands.  Green energy might not supply the least expensive kilowatt hour of electricity, but it keeps money that is now being sent oil and gas suppliers in your own country.

Oh yeah, did I mention that replacing natural gas with green energy will reduce Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and help fight global warming too?  Let’s hope that the opponents of fighting climate change jump on the “keep the money at home” bandwagon and help hasten the end of our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels.

Anyone who has railed against the close ties between the current administration and the fossil fuel industry has to be breathing a sigh of relief as President Elect Obama fills out his cabinet with people who believe in Global Warming and want to institute a cap on greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions.  understand that energy independence is much more likely from alternative sources than thru use of fossil fuels.

Secretary of Interior nominee, Ken Salazar, is a long time proponent of renewable energy and an opponent of developing oil shale in the western US.  The Colorado Senator told yesterday’s press conference that the country needs a technical effort equivalent to the “moon shot” to bring energy independence to the US.  He is thought to be open to the idea of business exploiting Interior Department lands, while seeking to protect wilderness and the environment.  He appears to be impressed by both the environment and the need for economic growth and the need to balance them.

The choice of Lisa Jackson for EPA administrator brings a veteran of the EPA and more recently the NJ Dept. Evironmental Protection.  She seems to be an enforcer who feels the EPA has gone easy on the US auto mileage standards, but is also criticized for “caving into business”  on enforcement issue.  Add in former Clinton admin EPA administrator Carol Browner as Presidential advisor on energy and climate change, you see a team of moderates that leans towards new environmental and regulatory changes that have been adopted by the rest of the industrial world’s countries.

I can’t tell you how angry the term “Clean Coal” makes me.  People in the coal and fossil fuel industry trumpet the term “Clean Coal” as their solution to global warming.  The idea is to take the CO2 from the coal burning plant smokestack and sequester (store) it so it doesn’t enter the atmostphere.  The idea is to pump the CO2 into the ground where it will then supposedly stay forever.  The only problem is that 1) it doesn’t exist, 2) it’s an untested theory and 3) the “science” behind it sounds a bit silly, since it assumes the stored CO2 will not leak back into the atmosphere.

The US Energy Lobby has been running ads telling us how great fossil fuels are, here is an ad for “Clean Coal” that helps to get the real message out.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District voted 15 to 1 to implement a CO2 tax of 4.4 cents per metric ton of emissions.  The tax would effect 2500 businesses ranging from refineries to grocery stores.  While this is the first Carbon Tax in the US, 4.4 cents per metric ton of CO2 represents just little more 1/2 of 1% of the actual cost of carbon offsets on the Chicago Climate Exchange where offsets closed today at $7.35 per metric ton.

For more details:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/21/MNDN10QD6O.DTL