NASA to Scientists: Shutup!

For those of you who dont know him, James Hansen discovered of global warming. Well, not quite, but he has been the alarm bell since 1988 warning governments and business leaders that the heat trapping gases CO2 and NOx are causing climate fluctuations that wouldn't otherwise be happening. Bill McKibben features a full run-through of Hansen's expereince on the Senate floor back in 1989 in his book End of Nature. If you haven't read it...pick it up.

Hansen now says that NASA and administration officials have been asked to review all his interview requests, coming lectures, papers and postings to the Goddard Insitute website often before they are released. I guess the odd piece here is why are public affairs officials reviewing scientific data and results being posted publicly on a website by one of the world's renowned climate scientists?

Well apparently they're doing it alot.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

He said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Except when the policy statements are tied to imperical data from one of the most accomplished climate scientists in the world. Don't we PAY him for his opinion? Isn't this like paying a basketball fan to go out and play for Kobe Bryant? Let the man talk! He's smart! Its why we pay him tax dollars.

And here's where it gets interesting:

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet."

The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Almost sounds as if it was cut from a movie script. The scary piece of this is that now no scientist can get on a call with press unless several public affairs officials from NASA are on the call as well. Are they translating something? What the heck is the point other than to twist results in the name of political gain?

PS: Arthur over at Its Getting Hot in Here has a great post on this as well.

The Power of Algae

Small steps toward curbing global warming emissions is coming out of the hub of tech/science advancement using one of nature's most simple organisms: algae. Isaac Berzin of MIT has created bioreactors of algae that strip the CO2 and NOx pollutants from emitting power plant smokestacks removing up to 40% of the CO2 and 90% of the NOx.

Working much like a screen, the algae bioreactors use photosynthesis to absorb the CO2 and other pollutants and emit oxygen instead. The algae is then harvested daily and from it a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out. This fuel can be used as biodiesel and is some of the cleanest fuel that can be burned for cars running on "veggie-oil." The dried solid is then clumped together and can be burned as a cleaner coal. Ethanol is also a by-product of this process.

The most impressive side of this plan, however, is Berzin's business strategy that lays out the way in which utilities and coporations can make money off of the deal. By setting up algae farms, the biodiesel and ethanol can be sold as additional energy products.

For his part, Berzin calculates that just one 1,000 megawatt power plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year. That would require a 2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, he says.

Now, the utilities aren't just gouging people for energy usage but are instead making it back in the form of fairly green energy. This explosion of biodiesel as a clean fuel could begin to affect car companies as more and more become open to producing diesel versions of their most popular vehicle for customers who want to drive on veggie oil.

Berzin's company in Cambridge, GreenFuel Techonologies is dedicated to educating all about the massive economic and ecologic bonuses coming out of clean air biofuels.

This is a good step in removing CO2 and NOx gases from the atmosphere but I also hope that eventually we'll move towards a more sustainable fuel source using solar and wind. The bottom line is this method is used on smokestacks that continue to belch out millions of pounds of CO2 and NOx every year and isn't really advancing the techological capability of clean energy. However, I'm all for supporting ways in which to clean up our environment, and this is one of the more interesting ways to help our air quality. I also don't want to ignore the fact that had we developed cleaner energy tactics a century ago we wouldn't be looking for ways to limit our emissions today. Still, who woulda thunk algae can absorb such dirty pollutants?

Wedges and Wedgies

Billy Parish of Energy Action posted a great post on a blog I helped get cranking called Its Getting Hot in Here (was the blog for the activist base during the Montreal climate talks last week but is now becoming the youth blog for students activists and the like).

Princeton released the study, that as Billy points out, was also sponsored by Ford Motor Company (you'll see a gratuitous photo of an Escape in the flash presentation) and BP. I, like Billy, don't agree with all the solutions they map out as many have side effects that would only add to the carbon problem in the atmosphere (and why the hell are people thinking nuclear is a good way to go?) Also, I, like Billy, agree that simply hoping to put a ceiling on emissions is aiming too low. As the study points out we do have the technology to make great leaps past global warming (as opposed to simply making the least possible effort) and create a new society not based on coal and oil. Too bad the study leaves some of those out.

Mo' Money Less Happy

The CS Monitor continues to cover more interesting topics than the NYT and their December 5th article on what constitute's happiness in this money-driven world struck a chord with my innner spendthrift. For instance, according to research done by a Warwick University economist and Dartmouth economist David Blanchflower, marriage equates to about $100,000 in happiness value...not that I think we should be putting a price on marriage (prenup would take on a whole new significance). However, it is interesting that we have to translate non-monetary value in our lives (family, marriage, health, friends) into monetary figures in order to fully understand the value of them.

Here are some additional "happpiness related" findings of Blanchflower's research:

• Nations (at least those in the West) do not grow happier as they grow richer.
• Women report higher levels of well-being than do men.
• Two of the biggest negatives in life are unemployment and divorce.
• Better-educated people report higher levels of happiness, even after taking income into account.

Here's another kicker: research shows overwhelmingly that married, monogamous couples are the happier than others.

That's because it finds, for instance, that those in a monogamous, faithful marriage are the happiest. In the dry language of the paper, "The happiness- maximizing number of sexual partners in the previous year is one."

Those who cheat on their spouses are less happy. Those who have ever paid for sex are much less happy than others. So are those who divorce.

Maybe this will change the way we look at our GDP in the future. Happiness isn't equated into GDP and judging by the first bullet point above it's time we start rethinking how we define what success is in life. Wealth is nice, but it's only a basic piece of a larger pie that includes such things as love, spirituality, health, longevity and a true understanding of our world. How can we start creating a culture of happiness?

A consumption tax that raises the income tax would help to deflate the purchase of items like yachts, vacation homes, 8,000 square foot homes and other un-needed extravagances. That money could then be used to increase public works, education, government programs to make more people happy. How about a 4 day work week so we can all spend more time with our families and more importantly, with ourselves. The best part of this idea is that this type of tax would actually stimulate savings in American families and promote investment.

Whats the definition of happiness anyways? Gosh, can you buy happiness?

How Literate Are You?

A new report by the NEETF (National Environmental Education and Training Foundation) has some startling news to those of us claiming to be eco-literate: what we don't know is going to kick our ass (ass = planet).

Usually, once someone understands something they are able to better make informed decisions about it. This new report, Environmental Literacy in America, explains over a decade of studies and research backgrounding Americans' environmental literacy. Joe Makower over at WorldChanging has a fantastic analysis. What's disconcerting is that it's final conclusion is that we don't know the half of how degraded our home turf really is.

One clip that caught my eye (besides the jaw-dropping results) was the idea of "nature-deficit disorder" (oh please let's not have a new pill for this one--I'm hoping scientists figure out the cure for this disorder is a few years in the outback or Canadian wilderness). NDD, as I like to call it, basically explains the pattern shifts in how young people interact with their natural environment:

As kids become more "wired" than ever before, they are drawn away from healthful, often soul-soothing, outdoor play. The age-old pattern of children spending hours roaming about and playing outside is becoming close to extinct due to a combination of electronics, cyberspace, and parental efforts to keep their children indoors and, in their minds, safer.

This also explains why we are the only country in the world to have 12 year-olds that are routinely mistaken for dwarfish versions of Steelers linemen at the local TCBY. It fits with my experiences as a summer camp counselor. When asked where our food comes from, some of our campers (including the 16 year olds) simply said, "the grocery store." Ok, but how does the grocery store get it? "I don't know...they order it from other grocery stores, I guess," said one 11 year old. Yikes. Once more the dichotomy between the natural world and our children's everyday experience seems shockingly vast. All I can say is thank god I grew up in Vermont where I could see dairy farms, family farms and a piece of the process in how our food arrives at grocery stores. And thanks to summer camps where I was forced to spend 4 days a month out in the Appalachian wilderness (ok...not really wilderness but pretty close) with nothing but oatmeal and a tent (ok...we had more than that - but not much).

Cowboy in a Straitjacket

The thing about binding agreements is that...well, they're binding. In this case, an international protocol was deemed "unfair" by George Bush because it excluded developing nations. That's kind of like complaining that your neighbor's Fiat emits more pollution than your John Deere...yet you have three SUVs in the garage and heat your house by burning coal. Once again Mr. Bush fails to see the bigger picture here. Maybe that explains why he feels like a cowboy in a straitjacket when dealing with global warming?

Today, Harlan Watson , the Chief Climate Negotiator for the U.S. in Montreal (talk about a dubious title), ruled out making pledges to fight global warming beyond 2012 which happens to be precisely when the Kyoto Protocol runs out. You just have to be skeptical of a guy who was recommended by Exxon-Mobil to be the U.S. Chief Climate Negotiator. Here's my favorite part:

Up to 10,000 delegates are meeting in Montreal, Canada, from November 28-December 9 to discuss new ways to fight a build-up of gases released mainly from burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars.

"The United States is opposed to any such discussions," Watson told a news conference of Canadian proposals to launch talks under the U.N.'s climate convention about new actions to combat global warming beyond 2012.

I gotta ask: Harlan, if you have no interest in these discussions why are you up in Montreal freezing your cheeks off? I can't figure out if you're wasting our time or your own. While Harlan shuffles his feet the rest of country is taking steps forward. While U.S. CO2 emissions were lower than the EU's between 2000-2003, what they aren't telling you is that the U.S. was almost %14 higher in '03 than in 1990 while the EU was a mere %1.4 higher for the same period.

Back at COP10 our friends at Greenpeace showed the weak argument Harlan and other Bush science whizzes were making. Either way the defense the WH puts up continues to get more and more lame. Aren't leaders supposed to step up in times like this?

New York Steps Up

When California decided to set its own air quality standards back in 1970 it had no idea what impact that action would take years down the line. Now, states like Vermont and New York are jumping aboard the clean air bandwagon and snubbing federal EPA standards, establishing their own stricter, safer and more demanding emission regulations. The rules, laid out by California, are expected to be followed by as many as 10 other states including New York in the coming year.

Automakers continue to complain (and sue) that these new regulations will limit the availability of many of our favorite trucks, SUVs and larger sedans as well as force them to curb sales of more powerful engine vehicles in the state. If these 10 states (including California) succeed in passing these new regulations they'll be an amazingly powerful regulatory bloc that automakers will have to contend with. Even more important, these markets will account for over a third of the nation's auto sales.

AAM (which has a virtually identical slogan to Ford Motors) says the California legislation will hurt SUV, truck and large car owners the most:

"The California legislation would hurt the most the people that rely on large cars, pickups, S.U.V.'s and minivans," Ms. Bergquist said.

Environmental groups say the rules can be met with technology already on the shelf.

"They said that seat belts would put them out of business; they said that air bags would put them out of business; they said fuel economy and emissions regulations would all put them out of business," said David Friedman, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"It turns out it's their unwillingness to innovate that's putting them out of business right now," he added, referring to the current struggles of General Motors and Ford Motor Company.

It seems like America's best automanufacturers are ignoring innovation not adopting it. If anything, American auto companies are busy working to paint every vehicle they produce as a green one.

The push for states to inact their own emission regs will only continue. California, Vermont and New York are on the list...keep your eyes on the others (RI, ME, NJ, MA, OR, WA, CT, PA).

*Point of Irony: the ads on the page linked to above on the NY Times website? Ford's innovation campaign. Can't say that ad space is doing much good.

Montreal Conference on Climate Change

I may be heading up to Montreal this week to analog the festivities going on around the world's most wonkified conference concerning climate change. It also happens to be THE most important meeting of the parties (i.e. those that signed the Kyoto Protocol) ever. Why? Because this is the meeting where everyone sits down to discuss how they're (I use "they" because the U.S. never signed it---but thank god for Russia) going to implement the rules and regulations agreed upon. More importantly, they're going to layout a plan for post-Kyoto which runs out in 2012.

This is fairly significant and over 10,000 dignataries and representatives from over 150 countries will be flying in to take part. Of course, the U.S. will have a delegation that's chief job will be to monitor the actions of our allies (and enemies) to see what type of trade regulations may be impacted as a result various restrictions that come out of the conference.

And while the wonks and dignataries sit inside discussion numbers and objectives, thousands of activists from all over the world will be gathered (actually, they've been there for weeks already) weighing in on the public conversation taking place. Hundreds of side events around the conference will be open to the public and anyone who wants to hear the stories behind global warming and climate change.

Lastly, if you can't go there in person, why not watch from the web? Energy Action and Rainforest Action Network established a hub where everyone and their mother will be working to post updates on whats going on from the ground in Montreal both inside and outside the conference. Should be interesting...do we think Nelly will endorse this?

Carbon Footprints and BP Oil

As more and more people begin to see how oil is no longer a viable resource they will begin to seek out companies that offer alternatives. One of the few oil companies that is beginning to shift in an acceptable direction for research and implementation of alternative energy sources is British Petroleum (BP). BP is the largest investor of all the major oil companies in solar, wind and geo-thermal industries. However, they are also heavily behind clean coal like their competitor Chevron and have been ridiculed for recent environmental "dodgings" in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay involving oil spills. Plus, parts of their "Renewables" section of their website doesn't work and investors and users can't really find out anything about where BP stands on solar and renewable energy. Not a good start.

Yet, there was one piece of the website that I thought was interesting: the Carbon Footprint indicator. Its a online tool that assigns values to certain activities/items in your household like taking a bath vs. taking a shower or how many cars you have and their mileage, all to show a user what their carbon footprint is on the earth. It also includes plane travel which is something often forgotten in a world focused on the vehicle.

Most of what these oil companies are marketing in their P.R. efforts is a type of greenwashing. It's telling citizens that they are working hard to focus on renewable energy resources and growing them when in reality they're still focused on age-old practices of ploughing and plundering land and sea-bed for hidden oil reserves (which is why oil and gas careers are booming right now). While showing people their carbon footprint is a fun and educational way of communicating the effects of an oil economy, remaining unchanged in company practices and treatment of the natural environment brings to light a larger issue based on integrity within that corporation. Yes we know progress is slow, but progress is also taking a step forward and not trying to cover up or lead astray your investors, clients and customers.

Fox For the Environment?

Looks like Fox News is starting to see the light. Tonight Fox National is running a special on global warming and its surrounding effects. While it seems to be a dramatic step for a media conglomerate dedicated to conservative issues and ideals, it is, it does seem to be scraping just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues around climate change. However, FOX's look into the culture behind the "disbelievers" is key. The fact that the title of the piece is the same as one of the most prolific books on the subject doesn't seem to be a coincidence either.

Also on TV tonight of note, a 60 minutes piece on eco-terrorism.

Happy viewing.

Role Reversal

The folks over at Amazon are doing some pretty incredible things of late. Artificial intelligence (AI) has long intrigued humanity as a way to subsitute flesh and blood humans with machines capable of making decisions and completing tasks that might otherwise be boring, overwhelming or just plain dangerous. Well, now we have Artificial Artificial Intelligence. Amazon's Mechanical Turk does exactly the opposite by creating AAI in computer software that enables them to make requests of humans. Why and how is this useful? Think about all the tasks that we have to have do in a typical business day that computers can't. Everything from information requests to judging the best photo for a marketing firm's campaign are jobs that people like you and me can do without too much trouble. What Mechanical Turk does is bring the needs of business to the solutions of millions of virtual workers who can work from anywhere there is an internet connection.

Michael Silberman over at EchoDitto makes some great points on why this is big:

This investment is a Big Deal because it speaks volumes about the company's appreciation for (a) the online multiplier effect, where many small, individual actions add up to a larger whole, and (b) the proven nature of distributed and decentralized processing via the 'net.

Basically, Amazon has created a tool that enables you to export your simpler (but more challenging) tasks to an army of willing workers online. Using this new API you can submit requests and tasks to the Amazon Turk website, approve completed tasks, and then incorporate those solutions into your own software. On the other end, humans can select HITs (Human Intelligence Tasks) to complete. You get paid once the person who listed the HIT approves your solution or work. So in a sense this is what happens when open-source idealogy mixes into the online job market.

For businesses and entrepreneurs who want tasks completed, the Amazon Mechanical Turk web service solves the problem of getting work done in a cost-effective manner by people who have the skill to do the work. It does this by ccessing a vast network of human intelligence with the efficiencies and cost- ffectiveness of computers. Oftentimes people do not move forward with certain projects because the cost to establish a network of skilled people to do the work outweighs the value of completing it. By turning the fixed costs into variable costs that scale with their needs, the Amazon Mechanical Turk web service eliminates this barrier and allows projects to be completed that before were not economical...For people who want to earn money in their spare time, the Amazon Mechanical Turk website solves the problem of finding work that they can do wherever and whenever they want.

But don't get too excited. At the moment you'd be hard pressed to find a gig for more a few bucks. You'd still have to file for unemployment if you took this on full time.

House Rules

Just when you thought drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was money in the bank...those moderate republicans do us all a favor. Today, the House of Representatives decided to remove the drilling measure from the now tabled budget bill that cuts over $54 billion from federal benefit programs. Over 12 moderate GoOPers played a key role in helping to keep the bill off the floor after expressing concern over cutting extensive social programs that would hurt the elderly and poor. This means is that when the Senate and House meet next week to reconcile their differences on the proposed budget bills there's going to be a battle. Drilling in ANWR has been a major piece of the Bush Energy Plan and as Scott McClellan says, "We continue to urge passage of that initiative."

It's too bad that Bush and fellow republicans are appealing to America's lowest common denominator on this. Undoubtedly, we as a nation when facing challenges in the past relied on American ingenuity to bail us out. We are a nation that responds well to challenges and the current energy problem is one that drilling in another undeveloped pristine landscape will not solve. Conservation is certainly not the only answer. But forcing automakers (especially American automakers) to create cars and trucks that get 45 mpg while swapping our coal power plants for solar techonology and redesigning our cities and suburbs are all easy first steps that when combined with conservation will save us 10 times as much oil (and money) then ANWR would.

So when does AI (American Ingenuity) have a negative effect on national progress? See our esteemed former EPA Chief Gale Norton for a scary look on why AI is keeping people from believing in an energy crisis.

We're glad to see that some moderate republicans helped keep ANWR out of the House budget bill, but their motives for tabling the bill were much different than NRDC's or Sierra Club's. In the end though, its one more roadblock for the Bush Energy Policy. Bush is keeping America from paving the way to a sustainable energy program, one that would lead the world into the new eco-centric future. Instead, he wants us to keep sucking down the oil by drilling in a land untouched by development for enough black gold to last us all of two years.

Oh, and an interesting tidbit regarding our national leaders and ANWR. Checkout where Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) gets most of his money from.

You Can Run...

I'm glad to see the White House Press Corps has begun to find it's backbone. Helen Thomas can breathe a little easier as journalists have rallied to continue putting pressure on President Bush and the questions swirling around his administration's indictments and the CIA leak case. Karl Rove is in the sights of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and as the press fires questions to our fearless leader about his senior advisor, the President seems content with aloof replies like, "This is a serious investigation and I have a job to do, an agenda to stick to." Yes, Mr. President, it is a serious investigation, one that involves national security, which is why we're asking you to comment on it.

As Bush travels to Argentina this week for the Fourth Summit of the Americas he's been given anything but a respite from attacks and questions about his job as leader of the free world. Populist Venezulean President Hugo Chavez rallied 25,000 protestors in the region's largest soccer stadium declaring the free trade accord being proposed by Bush as "dead" and accused the Pentagon of having a secret plan to invade his oil-rich country. Well, the first one is probably true, but the second claim...yeah I wouldn't put it past us. If it did happen it would be under the guise of "saving Venezuela" for their own national security.

Polls show Mr. Bush to be the most unpopular American president ever among Latin Americans, and thousands of demonstrators, led by the soccer idol Diego Maradona, are flocking to the Argentine beach resort of Mar del Plata to protest his presence at a summit meeting of Western Hemisphere leaders. The greeting from his fellow heads of state, who have been complaining of his administration's neglect of and indifference to the region for five years, does not promise to be especially warm, either. "He doesn't have any money to offer, so the president doesn't really have any cards to play," said Riordan Roett, director of the Latin American studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "Nobody among the crop of fiscally conservative but socially progressive presidents that we now have around the region is going to go to his defense."

Yikes. Diego Maradona, in case folks didn't know, is a rather large popular figure to this region of the world. That'd be like...oh I don't know...Michael Jordan coming out publicly against President Bush. Add to the mix today's 1,200 protestors marching only blocks from where the President met with Argentinian leader Nestor Kirchener and we've got quite a little riot party going on in South America. Somehow I think the President is going to have to really push to sell his new FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) proposal, espeically if all of South America is questioning it. Mr. President, you can run from all the questions left unanswered by and your cronies...but you can't hide from them.

Gettin' Your Sprawl On

Via kottke, a picture of suburban sprawl in San Ramon, CA. I really hope we're not STILL doing urban planning like we did in 1950. Talk about a step backwards....

Vermont Leads Fuel Efficiency Charge

Finally, the northeast is getting its act together around tougher policies for vehicle emissions. Wednesday the State Legislature approved a rule stating that all 2009 car models sold in Vermont will be subject to strict new state emissions rules. What are those rules? Well, details to come later. Apparently the ruling is looking to target CO2 and make a real dent in the overall pollution that cars and trucks put out. Do we think that long-time Vermont progressives Ben and Jerry played a roll in this? Possibly, but regardless they make great ice cream.

Why is this big? Well, just ask any automaker. The possibility of not being allowed to sell their F-150s and Tundras isn't exactly going over well in the boardrooms of Detroit. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ("Driving Innovation" is hardly a fair motto here) sued the state of California a few years ago charging that the "new rules" are unfair to consumers as it will increase the cost of the car, on average, about $3,000. California has been leading the charge and blazing a trail for other states to sign up. Vermont is one of the first to follow in the steps of the Golden State and New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine and the rest of the liberal nor'easters are close behind (oh wait...except for New Hampshire--you gotta question the intelligence of a state who places liquor stores the size of Wal-Mart on all their major highways to avoid paying high taxes...talk about a "sin tax"). Whats interesting is that the two different sets of rules allowed by the federal clean air act for governing emissions on cars are the California standard and the less-strict, industry-loving federal standard. So goes California, so goes the nation? Maybe...

As a Vermonter I'm slightly proud of my state for leading the country to follow in California's wake, especially with a moderate Republican Governor at the helm. So now, to go along with no billboards on highways, we're working on getting the CO2 out as well. Well done Green Mountain State.

Fuzzy Math 101

Tax breaks are more than just money back in the pocket of a possible "do-gooder" or White House "Friend of the Family." They're about the message. What message is the federal government sending when it gives more credit and higher standard deductions to heavier SUV models than to hybrid passenger cars? A pretty clear one: you can have your cake and eat it too.

The recently enacted Energy Policy Act does exactly this with the help of some ancient mathematical tomfoolery (Bush perfers to call it "magic") that gives more money to those who purchase certain SUV hybrids than to those who purchase passenger vehicles like the Prius and Honda Insight. Albeit, I get the general idea here: save more gallons of gas from being burned and we save less from hitting the atmosphere. From Wired...

The odd math is an artifact of a two-tiered tax credit that's based in part on how fuel efficient the car is compared to the average consumption of vehicles of similar weight, according to Jim Kliesch, a vehicle analyst with ACEEE. For this reason, the Honda Insight receives less credit than the similar performing but heavier Toyota Prius. The fuel savings component is based on the total fuel saved during the expected lifetime of a vehicle, which enables slight improvements to gas-guzzling vehicles to equal that of big improvements in fuel-efficient vehicles. For example, increasing the gas mileage of an SUV from 14 to 16 miles per gallon saves the same amount of gasoline (134 gallons) in a year as boosting the fuel efficiency of a passenger car from 35 to 51 miles per gallon, according to Kliesch.

So, where is the green incentive? We're rewarding people more for buying a less efficient vehicle. If I come home with my . I understand the overall economic reasoning (kind of..even that seems like a stretch) but take a step back and look at why the general tax incentive was created and suddenly this seems like a real failure of being too involved in details. Ballentine's quote is the key to this question: "If the goal is saving oil, then it's not nonsensical."

We want to reward people who buy the most fuel efficient vehicles, not those who simply have the most fuel left in their tank at the end of the day. Afterall, if my tank is bigger than yours (which is the case with SUV gas tanks compared to passenger hybrids) I'll probably save more gas over the life of the vehicle than you ever could with your Prius.

Now, throw into the mix the fact that the tax incentive is manufacturer-specific (yikes...the federal gov't penalizing people for not purchasing from "recommended" brands?) and you've got yourself a thoroughly confusing rebate program, one which I don't have one to sit down to figure out and neither do most Americans.

The amount of the tax credit also depends on when you buy, and from which company, further complicating consumers' purchasing decisions. The tax credit is cut in half for each manufacturer three months after the company sells a total of 60,000 hybrids. For example, if Toyota sells 60,000 Highlander and Prius hybrids by March of 2006, then in July the tax credit is cut in half, and goes down to 25 percent in January of 2007 before ending in June. Capping the tax credit based on volume is biased against Japanese companies Toyota and Honda that were first-to-market, according to ACEEE's Kliesch. "This formula penalizes the companies that have been pursuing (hybrids) most aggressively and allows the laggards (such as Ford and General Motors) to take advantage of it for longer time," he said.

So, not only will the government encourage people to buy less efficient vehicles with a tax incentive program that was designed to reward those who purchase the most efficient vehicles, but it's allowing itself to pick the businesses and corporations for the very people it governs. Can't say I agree with how this falls inline with the classic conservative mantra, "government out of the private sector."

Don't Move to the Gulf Coast

SF Chronicle has a good piece on where we are in the hurricane debate, whether its global warming or just nature kicking our ass every few decades. The good news? If you're on either side of this debate you win. The bad news? No conclusive evidence points to either. However, we do have some rather strident climatologists who would love to give you their opinion, which is what we pay them to do. So listen up, especially if you're planning on taking residence along the Gulf Coast (if you do can I suggest All-State and Geico for everything from your Cheerios to your Chevy, 'cause it'll all be gone when the next Katrina comes blowin' through.)

Right now two theories are coming out of the science community. Scientists that believe the last 15 years of intense hurricane activity is due to annual ocillations within a larger hurricane cycle occupy one side of the ring. On the other, we have those that firmly believe that global warming continues to play a role in "supercharging" these storms into tropical cyclones on steroids. And of course we have those in the middle who refuse to sign on to either theory entirely and are comfortable sitting on the fence with their own data to back them up. One thing everyone seems to agree on? That hurricanes have been slamming the eastern coast of the U.S. for the past 15 years in an unusual display of ferocity, frequency and power.

Here's a key fact that I thought backed up the global warming theory:

"Atlantic waters have been in a warm phase since 1995, and "we can expect to be
in a warm phase for the next 10 to 20 years," said Ryan Boyles, another
hurricane expert at North Carolina State University. "Therefore, we can expect
an above-average number of storms in the next 10 to 20 years."

Well, thats not good news. So it seems everyone also agrees that we'll have more Katrina's and Rita's (and Stans) in the next 2 decades? This cycle, for those that believe this is a natural cycle, one that we've weathered before, will be much longer than previous hurricane cycles or at least ones that were measureable. And if the ocean continues to warm (all theories point to yes thus far) we'll be getting more and more intense storms as well.

Plug it In, Plug it In

When a former CIA director and hawk speaks out on our country's oil addiction and endorses plug-in hybrid vehicles, I tend to sit up and listen. James Woosley, CIA director from 1992-'94, has quite a resume. In 1963 he received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University (With Great Distinction, Phi Beta Kappa) an M.A. from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar from 1963-'65, and an LL.B from Yale Law School where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal. So...we've established the guy is bright. He's "wicked smaat."

So what's he got to do with plug-in hybrid vehicles? Woosley endorses the PHEVs as "a here-and-now technology to answer the nation's needs." The CS Monitor points to a growing group of diverse individuals, corporations, public utilities, energy companies, non-profit organizations, environmentalists and local governments who are doing more than talking about what to do with the sudden energy crisis: they're pluggin' in.

Hybrids, after going through a quick modification (includes more batteries, a circuit board, a charger and a power cord) are plugged in at night which taps the cheap off-peak energy from power plants and allows the cars to be driven around 50-60 miles without using a drop of gasoline. At that rate, you wouldn't need to fill up but 3 times a year. Hows that for cheap gas?

Some concern from enviros say that using energy from coal power plants to power efficient vehicles is dangerous. I agree. The ultimate setup will be with individuals who have solar panels on their roofs and will be drawing from completely efficient energy source. Granted if you needed to drive 125 miles you'd have to gas up...but how often are we all driving 125 miles at a time?

James Woosley may be enocouraging this move for different reasons (getting us off foreign oil which he argues is what funds terrorism). But isn't that what makes this coming together of diverse groups and individuals that much more exciting? We're arriving at a common agreement of what the end result needs to look like, regardless of "why?" Kudos to Mr. Woosley and his guts in standing up for something not many would in his cadre of suits and shiny cufflinks.

Coffee and a....keyboard?

The Minnesota Daily (U of M's university paper) highlighted a rather unknown topic concerning newspaper production and its effects on forests worldwide. Now, I grew up in a household where The Boston Globe and New York Times were on the table at 6 a.m. (among other daily papers)and there still is that hard-to-explain feeling of holding a crisp daily paper full of today's news in your hands first thing in the morning. However, what if what's in today's news questions the whole idea of where we get that very paper?

Frank Erickson puts forth some startling data of how huge the newspaper production impact is on forests worldwide. America reads over 61 million papers every morning from a variety of 1,580 daily papers. Throw in the beastly Sunday morning dictionary that arrives at doorsteps and storefronts once a week and we're talking staggering amounts of paper; like 300 pounds per person per year. Whats even more shocking is....

Newsprint, which is what newspapers are made of, runs between 70 percent and 100 percent virgin forests. Though more than 60 percent of newsprint is recycled, not much of it again becomes newsprint. Virgin newsprint is much cheaper. A lot of recycled newsprint in the United States goes to China, recycled newsprint is one of the largest exported products in America. Even though we are recycling more, overall we are using more, much more.

Basically, the newsprint we read every day is pretty much from a tree, not from a recycled NY Times from 10 years ago. And, instead of reusing them we send them to China (along with the rest of our economy). So, are we addicted to a newspaper culture? Maybe, because as I was raised, its a key part of so many people's morning. With the advent of online journalism (and its FREE!) why do we continue to strip forested lands for our daily news? We've been reading on paper since the Egyptians discovered papyrus...maybe it's time we figure out a more sustainable format.

It's a Five

Hurricane Rita is officially a category 5. Washington Post reports that over a million people have been evacuated along the Gulf Coast region after 165 mph sustained winds were clocked inside the storm. Forecasters are already saying that Rita could be the most intense storm ever to hit the Texas coastline. And how is our leadership responding? Checkout this gem from Homeland Security Director Chertoff:

"You can't play around with this storm," Chertoff said on ABC's "Good Morning America." He added: "The lesson is that when the storm hits, the best place to be is to be out of the path of the storm."

You don't say. Glad to see leadership is stepping up with such a precise warning. We've already had one Cat-4 storm hit New Orleans and two weeks later a cat-5 storm is bearing down on Texas and all you can say is, "get out of the way?" How about explaining what the hell we're doing to be sure we don't have a second Katrina fallout? Checking out the satellite imagery, you can't say anything but "Wow." The intensity of this hurricane is astounding. Rita could be only the fourth Cat-5 storm ever to make landfall along U.S. coastlines, joining the Florida Keys storm ('35),Camille ('69) and Andrew ('92) in an exclusive but deadly club.

Rita is moving at approximately 5 mph across the Gulf of Mexico. Why does it matter? The warm waters of the Gulf are like steroids for 'canes. The longer time it spends hovering over the warm water the more powerful it becomes. The good news is that wind speed cannot exceed 190 mph. The bad news is, if they do, it would be the strongest storm ever to hit the United States coastline and will have the strength to slam cities hundreds of miles inland as well. The other bad news? Warmer oceans make for incredibly ferocious storms. Why are oceans warming? Climate change and escalation of global warming.

Also, see the loop that Unisys has setup showing the evolution of the storm. If you look carefully, you can already see another tropical depression forming about 500 miles east of the Dominican Republic. 'Tis the season....

UPDATE: And wouldn't you know, crude oil is on the up and up.