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.

If you find yourself more concerned with US energy independence and not just global warming, the prospect of clean burning natural gas (methane) has to sound pretty good.  Even a number of dedicated environmentalists include the use of methane, albeit recovered from agriculture and landfills, as part of a green energy plan.  Unfortunately, that’s where the similarities end.  The energy industry and the domestic development industry aren’t interested in recovery methane that currently leaks into the atmosphere.  The industry is particluarly interested in drilling to release gas trapped in rocks under Pennsylvania another nearby states, called the Marcellus Shale.

There are numerous problems with this approach, first and foremost is that it adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It is true that methane burning generates about 30% less CO2 than a gasoline engine, mile for mile and that it would be better for the planet to displace gasoline with methane, but unless and until the vast majority of methane leaking from landfills, coalmines, oil wells and agriculture is being burned for power, drilling new gas well, just adds more GHGs to the atmosphere.  The second problem and the scariest one right now, is that the method for recovering this gas from the rock formations, commonly called “Hydro Fracturing”.  Hydro fracturing sounds innocent, just pump water down the hole under pressure, crack the rock and free the methane to float to the top of the well where it is collected, cleaned and sold.  Well this is where the dirty secrets come into play, the “Hydro” in Hydro Fracturing, it’s more than just water, it also includes benzene, methanol, diesel fuel and other toxic chemicals, which the exploration companies are refusing to indentify, citing their formulas are trade secrets.  It is feared that these known carcinogens and others yet to be indentified will contaminate underground water tables, destroying the resource. The leading exploration companies using these method in the US include Haliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services.

So, while it would be great reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions by burning methane, it really only makes sense if it takes advantage of leaking methane.  When you add in the possible damage to the water tables in the exploration areas, green energy seems worth the extra efforts and costs upfront.

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.

It’s hard to admit this to the world, but i think a lot less about driving today than I did in July and August when oil hit it’s all time high around $150 per barrel.  As gasoline prices moved past $5 a gallon, my trip to visit friends and family went from about $8 to over $15, just for gas.  When the reward for doubling up with the wife and taking one car on these visits approaches and surpasses the cost of a lunch at the nearest drive thru, it’s time to reconsider.  Giving up the convenience of being able to change plans, was worth saving $15. Today with the world financial system collapses and gasoline prices following suit,  I’m thinking more about saving green, as in US Dollars and less about going green.

Reconsider I have.  I have reduced trips and even bought a bike for both exercise and for the short 1-2km trip to the local shop.  It was important before gasoline hit $5, when it was easier to savor the reward of going green by reducing your use of single passenger fossil fueled vehicles.  If I could swap money for saving the planet while getting more exercise and using the car less, the choice is simple.  This is what I was convinced of in August and September.  Today it’s November 1st and truth be told, i’ve only used the bike once or twice to get to the store and it’s too uncomfortable for a trip longer than about 10 minutes each way.  Gas is down and some bad habits are back.

Forgive me for going on about this, i’m sure most have considered these issues over the last year, but i wanted to focus on today.  Today gasoline prices are back under $3 per gallon and i already have found myself ready to make a trip in the car, much more rapidly than just 2 months ago!  Fortunately I’ve been able to keep myself from running out and still bundle my trips together. It’s amazing how much the price of oil seems to affect not just my attitude towards the resource and the environment, but also my behavior. Don’t give up the fight to conserve. Using less resources that emit CO2 is helping the planet and it’s likely helping you save some money too.

What’s up at UPS, the United Parcel Service, regarding going green?  Well the latest news from the company that likes to be know as “Brown” announced their order for the first 7 “Hydralic Hybrid” delivery trucks.  The “Hydralic Hybrid” stores power by pressurizing hydralic fluid, instead of sending electricity to a bank of batteries.  The early testing in metro Detroit have shown that these trucks can reduce fuel usage by 45 to 50% and CO2 emissions by 30%, when compared to conventional diesel engines. 

This new technology began development October 2001 a R&D project between Eaton Corp and the US EPA laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The vehicles that are delivered to UPS will be powered by a high efficiency diesel engine that periodically recharges pressure in the hydraulic store, rather than sending power to the wheels.  This technology is seen as a cost savings solution for large trucks, a way to reduce oil use and a way to reduce CO2 emissions from large vehicles.  It is estimated the the fuel savings will pay for the cost of this solution within 3 years.

The vehicles are being built by Navistar, using the Eaton technology.  Navistar’s participation is based on their ability to offer their customers “performance and reduced emissions with dramatic improvements in fuel economy,” said Steve Guillaume, Navistar General Manager, Medium Trucks.  UPS expects to take delivery of these vehicle in 2009 and 2010.  UPS noted in their press release that they are already the largest “green fleet” or more than 1600 vehicles growing to 2100 as the company ads another 600 vehicles this year.

Eaton’s press release:

http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/OurCompany/NewsandEvents/CT_190984

UPS’ press release:

http://www.ups.com/pressroom/us/press_releases/press_release/0,0,5052,00.html

If you watch television you’ve seen the ads with oilman Boone Pickens promoting switching our vehicles to run on natural gas/renewable fuels.  If not, the plan is based on 1 fundamental point: that relying on foreign oil is dangerous to the US economy and it’s position in the world.  In short, we should switch to natural guess to power vehicles instead of using oil.  The plan itself is under attack for substituting one carbon based fuel for another, when CO2 levels need to be reduced.  Further the is under attack because it’s creator/backer, 80 year old oilman T. Boone Pickens, has substantial investments in the various components of the plan.

The Good

The plan is about reducing dependence on oil and the transfer of wealth from the US to oil producing countries.  Keeping our energy spend at/near home is something that i support with my environmental, nationalist and capitalist values.  Environmentally the plan calls on substituting natural gas for gasoline that is mainly made from imported oil and substituting the electricity that is generated by natural gas, with wind power. This is a net gain for the environment. First, natural gas generates 30%+ less CO2, per mile than gasoline.  Further switching to wind from natural gas power plants eliminates the emissions from 16%+ of the power generation and about 11% of overall emissions for electrical generation (nat gas generates 33% of the CO2 of coal plants) due to it’s cleaner burn.

The Bad

The Pickens’ Plan encourage changing the entire US truck fleet to natural gas, since trucks use 25% of all gasoline.  Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels corp. a company that runs natural gas filling stations.  Pickens’ plan calls for wind power to replace natural gas generated power, to make the fuel available for transportation.  Pickens has ordered over $2 Billion worth of wind turbines to help produce that electricity.  The plan calls for the government allow emergency use of eminent domain to create right of ways for high voltage links between wind farms and electric users; Pickens is seeking to have power lines built to his wind farm.  While the plan may help the country, it is Pickens, more than any other individual, who will benefit from his plan.

The Ugly

Boone Pickens has been around for years and has acquired a number of friends and enemies.  Many enemies in the environmental movement base their stand on the effects of his business on the environment.  We all know about the environmental issues of an oil based economy and as a the ultimate Texas wildcatter, Mr. Pickens has made his fortune(and lost it and made it back) in the Oil and Gas industry.  More recently, Mr. Pickens has acquired the majority of water rights, for his Mesa Water, in his county in texas and intends to pump ground water for sale to Dallas, which is over 200 miles away.  Not only does he intend to pump water to sell, he intends to do so at a rate which empty the aquifer in 20 to 30 years.  In June he manage to get his ranch declared a public water district which gives him considerable power in using eminent domain to take property need for his 200+ mile pipeline.  Finally is you are a democrat and/or some one angry over the Swift Boat ads directed at John Kerry in 2004, it was Boone Pickens that spent over $7 million to bankroll the activity.

The Conclusion?

I think it’s a good idea to switch transportation to natural gas, from oil, but to put a bunch of government subsidies to make this switch when we are just a few years from plug-in rechargeables with reasonable cost and range isn’t wise.  Better we should subsidize, non-carbon technology with government money or tax credits.

Anthony Rubenstein discusses the plan and California Prop 10 at his site www.AnthonyRubenstein

I’ve been shocked by a recent Toyota commercial airing on Canadian TV. The ad, basically is trumpeting Toyota’s green credentials.  As in all Toyota commercials these days, it features their Hybrid vehicles and technology.  I wrote about the amazing cost of the CO2 displaced by a Toyota hybrid here: http://sunpowereddreams.com/2008/08/17/the-hybrid-hype-overpaying-for-co2/.  What shocked me was a statement at the end of this commercial - “Our goal? A car that actually cleans the air..”

Well it’s certainly a bold promise for a company that still doesn’t have an all electric vehicle.  What’s even funnier than the statement itself, is that Toyota USA is advertising about “striving for” zero emmissions and zero waste.  Frankly the Canadian ad reeks of an ad agency gone overboard.  What’s next? A car that prevents you from aging, or that cooks lunch?  Why would you put this “pipe dream” into your ad? It might not be green washing  but it’s way past a rational goal and very much on the way to the utopian thinking.

I think it’s way too much for a car company that still runs on the internal combustion engine.