Our World and Everything in It

Get a load of our democratic process with this latest veto out of Washington. The Bush EPA nixed California’s proposed emission standards for the state that targeted the trucking, shipping, cement, semiconductor and consumer product industries. Instead Bush signed into law a new energy bill that requires automakers to cut emissions by 25 percent by 2009 and by 40 percent by 2020. The EPA said this covers the issue of emissions, end of story. Was that apples to apples?

Sixteen other states have already approved emissions laws and were waiting for this waiver by the EPA too. The EPA is supposed to have sole authority to make pollution rules, but our Federal Clean Air Act allows states to create their own rules with an EPA-approved waiver. The waiver was nixed today. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of 12 states that sued the same EPA for dragging their feet about CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court had to tell the EPA that greenhouse gases can be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and they were in violation for not regulating them. And today the EPA blocked California and the other states from doing what should have been the EPA’s job and substituted with Bush’s flimsy energy bill. 

So the states go through a lot of effort for nothing. The emission laws were part of California’s “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The NRDC and many public interest groups co-sponsored it. California committed to reducing overall global warming pollution by 30% by 2020. They figured on new technologies as well as pollution cutting strategies to meet these goals. They sought the help of E2, “a national network of business people who work with the NRDC to champion the economic benefits of good environmental policy” and “who built a solid case for the ways in which curbing global warming could actually benefit California’s economy” (Nature’s Voice Newsletter by the NRDC Jan/Feb 2008). Just what I thought. Green is good for the economy.

I was intrigued by E2 and read on that they argue, “that clean technologies would create jobs and attract new companies to the state…supported by the fact that clean tech now ranks third in venture capital investment in North America.” Told ya so Michigan. Clean technology isn’t likely to coexist alongside coalburners and refineries. They showed that California would save “barrels” of money by reducing dependence on fossil fuel. It also stated that it took 124 meetings at the state capital by E2 volunteer members to “present their business-based argument.” They worked hard to come up with legislation that protects the environment and creates economic opportunity. They believe global warming controls will spur economic prosperity. This was a great program, until the automobile lobby got involved. Yeah, another lobby.

According to our own Detroit News:

Using a one-page script and a list of auto facilities obtained from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents automakers, staffers at the Department of Transportation called nearly every congressional member from Michigan and Ohio, urging them to oppose California’s request, according to records released this week by the House Oversight Committee. They also targeted other auto-heavy districts and governors in at least seven other states.
While federal law bars government officials from lobbying lawmakers on issues before Congress, there are no such restrictions on regulatory questions, such as the California waiver.

California filed a lawsuite challenging the EPA’s denial of the waiver. And there is a House Committee investigating the agency’s decision to deny it also. This is getting good.

.
Read more about the veto at: http://lawyersusadcdicta.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/epa-nixes-states-plan-to-limit-greenhouse-gases/#comment-285.

Read more about E2: http://www.e2.org/jsp/main.jsp.

About the Supreme Courts decision: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june07/emissions_5-29.html.

The Detroit News article about the auto lobby: http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070705/AUTO01/707050350/1148.

Imagine fueling your car with a biodiesel that gives off the sweet smell of chocolate and costs around $1.16 per gallon. That is a reality for Andy Pag of London and John Grimshaw of Poole. They are planning a trip from England to Timbuktu in their FORD Ford Iveco Cargo truck. Notice the emphasis on Ford. You know if other people in other places are fueling our cars and buses with different, and this one is different, biodiesels than what’s our hold up? Chocolate of all things. I guess it keeps the engine lubed better too. 

The article in Environmental News said the company, “Ecotec developed a proprietary process for converting waste chocolate from the nearby factory into bioethanol on an industrial scale. Previously this waste was thrown away in landfill sites but now the bioethanol it makes can be used for fuel in petrol-burning cars and in the production of biodiesel.” So there really are chocolate factories.

It said Andy and John would be carrying “2,000 liters of biodiesel produced from 4,000 kilos of chocolate mistakes…” I wonder if it smells faintly like chocolate in its biodiesel state? I could not endure the 4500 mile journey with the constant smell of chocolate. I wonder what this biodiesel tastes like?

Read the story. It’s probably one of the most unusual substances used for biodiesel so far. Who knew bad chocolate is just thrown away and whoever heard of a chocolate mistake of all things?

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-26-02.asp.

I went to Neil Young’s concert at the Fox in Detroit last night. Excellent! First part was unplugged and second part jammin. The first song of the encore was “Cinnamon Girl.” I’ve seen him before and he is always the same, consistent, sounds as tight as the album but better. What’s this got to do with the environment? Neil Young’s latest efforts are geared toward the environment and the war of course all relative to the Bush administration.

The unplugged first part of the show where the man picks up just about any instrument and does one of his many songs did the famous “After the Gold Rush.” Well the verse that says: “See Mother Nature on the run in the 1970’s” was changed to end with “in the 21st century.” That little bit had the crowd cheering from the start. People are aware a change is coming as Young would say it and this crowd appreciated Young’s environmental mode. I made note to pass the moment on. It was a good evening and a very good show. That little cheer from the crowd right off the bat upped my optimism a degree.

When we exited the show and headed up the side street two huge buses were lined up there. One looked like a stainless steel house. Ah, Neil Young’s road digs. The man is setting an example. The buses run on bio-diesel from soybean and/or vegetable oil with 75% less emissions. Other musicians are following suit. Bonnie Raitt tours likewise. Of course Willie Nelson has been touring in buses fueled with vegetable oil for quite awhile. “Jane’s Addiction” even  fuels its generators with the stuff.

We must be getting old because we didn’t hang around to get a glimpse of him coming out to get into his rolling house, but enjoyed the night anyway.  After stopping near our house to catch a local band at a local bar, who were remarkably good after seeing someone like Young, I am deaf today. I had to wonder how deaf these aging artists have become?

I’m thinking about bicycles as a mode of transportation. Mainly because there is a delay getting a new radiator in my car and if the car is finished before noon tomorrow, I could still run my errands. But I have no way of getting there. It’s about 5 miles one-way. Not bad. I remember using a bicycle for transportation more than once in life, but I wasn’t in my 50’s.

First I remembered using my bike about 3-4 miles in one direction when I dropped off our car for service a long time ago. But I was about 29, and lifted weights, ran—God what energy. I start to wonder if my bike tires are dry rotted? I wouldn’t want my husband using the compressor on them—too risky. Even if they were OK, would I make it? I figured I could do it, and probably like the ride, but about 2 days after the ride my legs are liable to lock up. I can feel the soreness. And my back, being stretched over for 5 miles would mean a visit to the chiropractor for sure.

Then I remembered that I got along quite well one summer without a car. I can’t remember why I didn’t have a car, but I do remember using my bike. I was in my 20’s. I lived in downtown Monroe, and friends lived nearby. I worked with friends and hitched a ride to work. I paid the gas. It really wasn’t that bad. When I moved to Charlotte Arms Apts., it was a little farther from downtown, but riding down Macomb St. about 2 a.m. was really rather pleasant.

Bicycling has its merits as a mode of transportation. If you think you live a little too far out, think again. Newer bikes are so light that they travel super fast. Of course nowadays one must have a helmet also. I remember getting to places really a lot faster than I thought I would on a bike.

Besides being environmentally friendly, the best thing about the bicycle is that you never have to work out again. You can eat pretty much what you want. Or not very much at all because a bike is not exactly like jumping in a car and running through a drive-through at the drop of a hat. Much ordering in goes on.

Although there are drawbacks to the bike, weather for one, weirdoes for another (carry a tire iron), and traffic, it’s not a bad mode of transport during the summer.  I might give a go again. I can ride along Lake Erie in the game reserve. Rough day huh? That is, after I get my old bike out of the loft in the pole barn, dust off the cobwebs and polish off the rust, check the tires, shine her up and see if I can still stay on the thing without wobbling down the road.

Boeing premieres its 787 “Dreamliner” jet tonight at around 7:00 pm EST. It will more than likely be on CNN since they announced it. It is more environmentally friendly than the usual airliner because it is lighter and more fuel-efficient. Boeing estimates the 787 will use 27% less than the jets it will be replacing.

The Dreamliner isn’t huge. It’s a wide, mid-size, twin-engine jetliner that will hold 210-330 people in two interior sections. There will be three categories of 787, the 787-3,  8, and 9 with a price tag that spans from lowest to highest also. For a mere $138-143 million you can purchase a 787-3. The 787-8 will cost $148-157 million, and the 787-9 a whopping 178.5 to 188 million. Over 500 of these planes are sold already. If you want to preview the plane and get more info on-line click here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787premiere.html#time.

On the same note, the British have come up with a smaller jet that is really different in design and meant for the short haul such as cross-country. It has been called easyJet ecoJet because it will emit 50 percent less CO2 and 75 percent less nitrous oxide than our newest short haul jets. Now that’s really environmentally friendly.

The ecoJet uses much the same material for its body as the Boeing “Dreamliner.” It uses open rotor engines and is supposed to be 25 percent quieter. With all the jets going over my house, I hope we get these up and running soon. Major airliner manufacturers are applying the same type of technology to new jets in development all over. When this jet comes out, the airlines are poised to eat them up.

It appears the original easyJet wasn’t that hard on the environment to begin with. When the amount of CO2 emitted by the jet is divided among the passengers per kilometer it only generates 97.5 grams of CO2. The Toyota Prius emits 104 grams. The European car industry has a target of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometer for the energy standards. 

If you’re wondering why this is important, well NASA did a study in 2004 that showed a 1 percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the U.S. due to air travel. You know all those jet trails that blend in with the clouds? Those jet plumes caused a 1 percent increase in clouds per decade. If you don’t think that’s much, I would have to say that it shouldn’t be evident at all, at least not an amount that can actually be measured. No wonder all our patio furniture gets so pitted up. Those emissions eventually rain down on everything. We breathe that air. We’ve become way too comfortable with pollution. It’s good to see the easyJet is not that far off from production and that most jet manufacturer’s are embracing that same technology.  For now we have the 787 Dreamliner, a step in the right direction for going green. Read more about the easyJet ecoJet at Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070615_easyjet_ecojet.html.
 

Operation Spotlight is a new move by the League of Conservation Voters to expose the politicians who accept the most money from special interest groups (lobbyists). It’s a timely program, since congress has a new bill in front of them now, to limit lobbyist donations. This bill to restrict lobbyists may or may not pass in Congress. Regardless, the LCV hopes to defeat the candidates that do the bidding of rich lobby groups through Operation Spotlight. What a good name for the program. What do you think about lobbyists? Remember there are lobbyists that want good things like more research and funding for children’s diseases, humane organizations for animals. Lobbyists are not all bad. Do we want to get rid of all of them, or some of them, or put restrictions on what is allowed?

LCV plans to let senators and reps know that Operation Spotlight will be paying attention to who contributes what, to whose campaign, relative to blocking efforts to curb global warming, and allowing pollution to continue. They will publish the information. This is a good thing. The first Operation Spotlight report will be out in the coming weeks. But LCV has been keeping track all along, and I was a little surprised at the figures from 2006. The big contributors against efforts to help the environment are:

       Electric utilities, which donated $15 million;
       Oil and coal industries that padded coffers with $21 million;
       Transportation, such as car companies, that offered up almost $40 million.

Over all, since the 2000 election corporate polluters contributed $586 million dollars to candidates in congress! That’s some mighty big opposition to going green. My biggest surprise was the contribution by car companies. Aren’t they supposed to be in financial trouble ? No wonder we can’t come up with cars that get more than 35 miles per gallon. Fuel efficiency like that gets put off until 2020. Thirteen years is a pretty steep wait, considering we are supposed to get moving in the next 10 years to try to squelch some of the bad weather and rising waters that are already turning up. It was clearly stated, at least I got it, that even though we act quickly; we are still going to see some pretty bad stuff. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t wanna.

I read an interesting article on World Wire about electric scooters. People are fed up with gas prices and are genuinely concerned about the environment. So scooters are selling like hotcakes all over the country. The number one question potential scooter buyer’s ask: “Will it get me to work and back?” Sure will. They run on pennies compared to dollars per gallon for gas, have 1/10th the impact on the environment, a cheap model can be purchased for $200-$300 dollars, and they are quiet.

Cities are beginning to revise their laws to allow these scooters on the streets. Will we have scooter lanes? Some cities have bike lanes. It’s all very Asian I think. It reminds me of pictures of downtown Saigon. Everybody is on a scooter. Unfortunately, Vietnamese scooters are puffing out CO2, but the picture remains the same. Will people in suits use a scooter? I can see the tie trailing behind now. Will everyone have to wear a helmet? This is all pretty new.

Green is a brand new industry waiting to happen. Scooters sales are a good example of a green market that is taking off because it offers a product that does the job with very little environmental impact, comes in all price ranges, and the savings on gas pays for the scooter in a short time. It’s a good green product that the public will buy when offered the choice. An electric scooter dealer reported over 28% increase in his sales on-line and at his Tampa retail-outlet since 2006.

Tampa retail outlet? New picture here. Senior citizens, I love em to death, but many do not drive well. My new mental picture is of senior drivers on the street at the same time as a bunch of electric scooter commuters. Scooter Commuter has got a ring to it. Anyway this could be a recipe for disaster.

My dear departed father was a moped man in Florida. To me, moped is a scooter with another name. I got him a baseball hat that said “Senior on Wheels.” He had all kinds of mopeds. His hobby was restoring them to run like new. We each had our own when we visited and would tear around in the orange groves on them.

My husband set out with my dad on mopeds. When they got back my husband, hair sticking straight up from the wind and eyes wild, swore he’d never go with my dad again. Why? Because they went along side a highway on the shoulder (illegal), my dad then cut across 3 lanes of traffic to a ramp, while cars were winging buy, and then stood up and waved for Ed to come on; it was all right. Mind you my husband has owned 2 Harleys. On top of that my dad had a heart condition and knew it. He shouldn’t have been out there to begin with. See what I mean about scooters in FLA?

Now that I’ve taken you off the subject, if you are interested in becoming a scooter commuter, or want one for fun, to get around your property, or to buy for your kids (scooters come in sizes) check out this website:

http://www.tm-scooterhaven.com/

Hey, I just remembered. Mary, who writes the HR blog, used to wing to her job at the bank on a scooter way back in the 70’s. It was an old gas bike, but I remember that now. She wore a helmet. I can’t remember if she wore a skirt too. Rotten I should blog this huh? LOL