State of U.S. global warming efforts: Business as Usual
President Bush spoke of "the serious challenge of global climate change" in his State of the Union speech last night, and called for the U.S. to reduce gasoline consumption 20 percent over the next 10 years. The reduction in gasoline consumption would primarily be achieved through promotion of alternative fuels such as ethanol and liquefied coal. While it is a pleasant change to hear the president acknowledge the reality of the climate change problem and to propose measures that could significantly reduce U.S. consumption of foreign oil, his proposals do virtually nothing to combat global warming.
About one third of greenhouse gases emissions in the the U.S. come from cars and trucks. Thus, a 20% cut in gasoline consumption would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by about 6%, at best. Since a large portion of the gasoline reduction would come from liquefied coal--which, when burned, makes double the CO2 of burning gasoline--even this modest 6% decrease in emissions might end up at zero. The President offered no plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electric utilities or industry, whose emissions will continue to grow at about 2% per year. Overall, greenhouse gas emission will grow by 14% over the next decade under the President's plan, according to Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. The consensus among most climate scientists is that emission of greenhouse gases must be radically cut 50-60% globally by 2050 in order to avoid dangerous levels of global warming. The President's business-as-usual plan to allow emissions to increase by 14% over the next decade will make it extremely difficult to achieve that goal, as the U.S. contributes about 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 — Blog Index
The European solution is subtly different... Instead of offering a rebate, fuel prices are artificially inflated, with taxes bringing a gallon at more than $6. As a byproduct, people tend to buy smaller, fuel-efficient cars.
Here is one example of a very popular European car: Link
Even this economical vehicle could do better by reducing weight, power and unnecessary gadgets.
Throw away air conditioning, power windows and many metal parts. Reduce the 110MPH top speed to a more reasonable 90MPH and you could move it around at a stunning 80mpg.
All it takes is political will.
Much more!
Small economical cars cost only a fraction of the price of SUV's. You have to take that into account as well.
The switch to ethanol is going drive up corn prices worldwide, and rob some of the world's poorest peoples of a staple food as they will not be able to compete with the American subsidized ethanol industry.
Liquified coal is an environmental nightmare, and actually increases greenhouse gas emissions!
As others have in part pointed out, the only way to go re vehicle emissions is some combination of:
- tighter fuel efficiency standards for the ENTIRE vehicle fleet (no more SUV exemptions!),
- fuel taxes,
- slower speed limits,
- rebates for fuel efficient vehicles.
Then there are all the other sources of carbon emissions, which the President managed to overlook entirely..
Link
More about the car (french): Link
The air car does really work, but its efficiency is very low because of all the losses occurring between the power station and the actual movement of the car.
This car is really 'clean' only if the air is compressed by zero-emissions means (water, sun, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc.).
Anyway it would be a good way of using the nighttime production of electricity that is currently wasted.
grimm....if..it should be proven that your driving that land yacht is damaging to the same planet i share...then...i damn well will make a big deal about it...
And let's lay off the name-calling please, ok?
Science has nothing to do with communism. Global means Amsterdam, Johannesburg, Bangkok but also Vancouver, Detroit and New Orleans...
Wherever you live, you will not be spared.
Even if you don't care about others, at least you should care about yourself.
Just wanted to post a radar view of some very welcomed rain for southeast florida.Nothing severe but rain is indeed welcomed as we have been pretty dry down here.Cool temps to follow.
- tell me again, does your world view have any room in it for responsibilities on your part or do you only have rights?
Animated radar view
TEMPS THROUGH THE AFTERNOON SHOULD BE IN THE 50S ACROSS
THE LAKE AREA AND FALL WELL INTO THE 60S SE COAST THROUGH THE
PERIOD. LOOKING AHEAD...LOOKS LIKE TEMPS IN GLADES COUNTY COULD FALL
INTO THE UPPER 30S TONIGHT WHICH COMBINED WITH WINDS IN THE 5 TO 10
MPH RANGE COULD RESULT IN WIND CHILLS IN THE LOWER TO MID 30S. WE
WILL LOOK INTO THIS CLOSER FOR THE AFTERNOON PACKAGE AND WILL NEED
TO MAKE A DECISION THEN AS TO WHETHER WE NEED A WIND CHILL ADVISORY
OR NOT.
Animated miami radar view
now..as to getting rid of SUV's ( again...we're making the giant assumption that GW is a man made event and thusly reducing co2 levels will have an impact )seems to me...you first..mandate that manufacturers sell no product for general public use under a certain mpg level..and you phase that in at a predetermined timeframe....secondly..you offer some type of incentive..to encourage owners of gas hungry vehicles to purchase more mpg friendly units...couple that with a penalty tax down the road on registration of gas guzzling vehicles and i believe you have a viable solution....is there a cost involved..that you and i will have to bear...of course..will it hurt the poor more than the rich..unfortunately so...will a free market system find a way to cash in on it...darn skippy...i'm betting someone would be snatching up those suv's and converting the gas engines to some new system and reselling them at a profit...
Strong La Nina by July?
your kinding me right?? i hop not but if we do then run for your lives run for the hills
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 — Blog Index