My, how the tables have turned. First, it was Germany that was in opposition to stringent emissions standards in the European Union which would have regulated the amount of carbon dioxide a vehicle can emit, beginning in 2012. German automakers tend to make large, luxurious vehicles with big, powerful engines. France, though, did not want to see changes made to the regulations, as its automakers already were close to meeting the proposals and thought it would be unfair to make concessions just for German brands. So, the two countries had a little meeting and came to some sort of agreement which would not go into effect until 2015.

Now, it's Italy that is in opposition to the French and German deal, as Italian automakers also offer rather efficient vehicles. Italian environment minister Stefania Prestigiacomo calls the new proposal unacceptable and feels that it would put the Italian companies at a disadvantage to its competition. We wonder what the final regulations may look like once every country has had its say in what should be done.

[Source: Automotive News Europe - sub. req'd]

It wasn't all that long ago that the auto industry was under fire for its use of ozone-depleting chemicals in its air conditioning systems. To curb those fears, the older R-12 refrigerant was replaced with R-134a refrigerant. Interestingly enough, CO₂, long associated with harmful automobile emissions, is being touted as a desirable natural replacement for the chemical substances used today. In fact, the German Automotive Association has already chosen to use CO₂ as the next source for automotive air conditioning.

Another possible replacement for our current system is being proposed by DuPont and Honeywell. Known as HFO 1234-yf, it is a chemical refrigerant which is less efficient that current solutions. Safety concerns have also arisen regarding the flammability of the new chemical. For these reasons, auto manufacturers are meeting at an event next week in the appropriately hot climate of Phoenix, Arizona in an effort to make some sort of decision on how to proceed. We'll keep you updated.

Automotive research and analysis firm JATO does an annual assessment of vehicle carbon dioxide emissions in the European Market. For several years, Fiat and Peugeot/Citroen have been going back and forth as the leader. For 2007, JATO's analysis based on sales put Fiat at the top of the heap among the ten biggest manufacturers that do business in Europe. Fiat's 2007 fleet averaged CO₂ emissions of only 137.3g/km while second place was a draw between Peugeot and Toyota at 141.9g/km. Peugeot and Fiat both sell far more small cars than anything else, many of them powered by diesel engines. Fiat in particular also promotes natural gas-fueled vehicles, having sold 50,000 of them in Italy in 2007. Toyota of course has their hybrids, but they also sell a lot of diesel-powered vehicles in the European market. The big three German manufacturers trailed the pack with their higher powered cars. Volkswagen (particularly through Audi), BMW and Mercedes only achieved 161.7 g/km, 176.7g/km and 188.4 g/km respectively.

[Source: Paddocktalk, thanks to Cedric for the tip]

In a report in the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), a team of scientists says that carbon-dioxide induced "changes in ocean chemistry within the ranges predicted for the next decades and centuries present significant risks to marine biota" and that "adverse impacts on food webs and key biogeochemical process" would result. The problem is severe enough that the CO2 content in our water could violate EPA water quality criteria standards set back in 1976 within a few decades if drastic steps to curtail our CO2 emissions are not taken. Why is this so serious? From our source article:

"About 1/3 of the CO2 from fossil-fuel burning is absorbed by the world's oceans," explained lead author Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology. "When CO2 gas dissolves in the ocean it makes carbonic acid which can damage coral reefs and also hurt other calcifying organisms, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton, some of the most critical players at the bottom of the world's food chain. In sufficient concentration, the acidity can corrode shellfish shells, disrupt coral formation, and interfere with oxygen supply. "

According to the EPA report from 1976, CO2 concentrations must remain below 500 ppm or else the pH (potential of Hydrogen) levels will be too low, making the water acidic. An effort must be made to avoid this scenario, and our emissions of CO2 must be cut drastically in short order to keep from damaging our waters.

[Source: Carnegie Institution]

Should we be adding hemp to the growing list of crops for alternative fuels that are better than our current use of corn for ethanol? That is an idea proposed by Anthony J. Gerst over at Planetsave.com. Anthony surmises that hemp could produce 600 gallons of methanol per acre. Methanol, being an alcohol, could be used as an alternative fuel, and is also used as a component for creating biodiesel from vegetable oil.

Other points of interest from the posting include the fact that hemp could save many trees from paper use, and is an excellent crop for the sequestration of CO2. What do you think? Should we consider hemp as a crop for use in alternative fuels?

[Source: Anthony J. Gerst / Planetsave]

A new provisional policy has been announced by the progressive Canadian state of British Columbia to clean up coal-fired power stations; the same state that the GLOBE Foundation believes could be energy self-sufficient by 2025. The new policy requires that new coal-fired power plants must emit no carbon dioxide, but instead capture and sequester their carbon dioxide emissions using technology that is currently available today according to local politicians. The cost to build such a plant are estimated to be at least 10 to 15 percent higher than a regular pulverized-coal plant however.

Some experts feel the result of the policy will be to effectively mandate Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal gasification technology which produces a purer waste stream to extract the CO2 from. IGCC is commonly seen as one of the few realistic approaches to effectively capture carbon dioxide. It also has the advantage of reducing NOx and sulfur dioxide emissions to be more in line with those from a natural gas-fired power plant. The best way to actually sequester the captured carbon dioxide is proving to be far more contentious.

Analysis: Reduced emissions and easier carbon dioxide capture make IGCC attractive (as far as coal-fired power stations go). The technology to sequester this captured carbon dioxide in deep geologic formations is still far from being proven in the long-term though. I don't think pumping carbon dioxide into the ground is really the answer in the same way that pumping crude oil out of the ground isn't either. A better solution is to pursue growing algae for biodiesel with all that carbon dioxide.

Related:

• British Columbia sees biofuels as part of 2025 energy self-sufficiency plan
• Think coal gasification and coal-to-liquid is the same? Not even close
• Fewer coal plants in Texas as a result of environmental groups and a buyout offer

[Source: Technology Review]

Considering the rate at which China is industrializing, the thought of just how much oil they'll consume in future years is staggeringly high. With that in mind, Feng Fei, director of the industrial economics research department with the Development Research Center of China's State Council, announced that by 2025, 50 percent of China's cars will run on fuels other than gasoline. At this point, the alternatives appear to include diesel, biofuels and hydrogen.

Despite being in a developing country with abundant coal reserves, Feng said that diesel refined from coal was not a viable option because of the low energy efficiency and high CO2 emissions during the production process.

Whether or not specific policies will be put in place is not clear. If not, it'll be difficult to get excited about mere predictions. Remember, we just heard of the study that shows three-quarters of the automakers in Europe are on track to come up short on their promised, voluntary agreement to reduce emissions of CO2 to 140 grams/kilometer by 2008/2009. It takes more than promises to have an impact.

[Source: Xinhua / People's Daily via Auto Industry]

The Golden State once again makes a bold move acting as a leader in environmental legislation. On Wednesday, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reached a deal with California Democrats to implement reductions on all greenhouse gas emissions including those from industrial plants by about 25 percent by 2020.

The focus here is on major industries which include utility plants and oil and gas refineries. The bill would create a market-type system in which companies could buy and sell emissions credits with other companies. This would give some leeway to businesses that can't meet their emissions targets by implementing new efficiency protocols and alternative fuels, or those who consider the changes too costly.

Schwarzenegger's move represents a break with the Bush administration, whose stance on carbon dioxide emissions is that CO2 is not a pollutant. Regardless of the semantics, the ruling is significant because it prevents their reduction through the Clean Air Act. Bush's stance was in turn a reversal of the Clinton administration's position on the matter.

California Republicans who prefer to defer climate issues to the federal government oppose the bill pointing to the possible harm it could bring to the state's economy by driving jobs and businesses out of California.

The bill is now headed to a Democratic-controlled Legislature for approval.

[Source: Associated Press via MSNBC]

Over the 9 year span from 1995 to 2004, European, Japanese and Korean automakers have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by, on average, 12.4 percent in Europe. However, they still run the risk of falling short of meeting their voluntary target of reducing emissions 25 percent by 2008 for the European manufacturers and 2009 for the Asian car makers.

In light of these statistics, the European Union warned auto manufacturers that if they don't pick up the pace, the EU won't "hesitate to replace the carrot with the stick" and impose mandatory requirements.

Reducing CO2 emissions is a major aspect in the EU's strategy to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. Since 1990, overall CO2 emissions levels from automobiles has increased 22 percent.

In response, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, the European version of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, emphasized the success of the voluntary agreement and stated they would be willing to work with the EU to develop new ideas. However, at this point the car manufacturers will need to average reductions of more than 3 percent per year to meet their voluntary targets.

[Source: Associated Press via Detroit News]

Thinking in renewable energy terms, New Mexico just screams solar energy. But a report released today by the New Mexico Public Interest Research Group (NMPIRG) Education Fund shows that the state can and will do a lot more to reach the goals set by Governor Richardson last June to seriously reduce emissions throughout the state in the coming decades. By 2050, the goal is to emit 75 percent less than in 2000.
One of the states largest carbon dioxide pollutant sources is – surprise – the transportation network. Therefore, the report calls for requirements for cleaner-burning vehicles and more efficient tires. The NMPIRG also urges New Mexico to adopt a biofuels standard so that at least a portion of all fuel sold in the state contains some biofuel.

If you’re interested in buying a new hybrid or converting your old Mercedes to run on SVO, but don’t have the time or money right now to make that sort of thing happen, there is an easier way to greenify your car, and you can do it today with the car you already own.
TerraPass is basically a donation program where drivers support new renewable energy technologies based on how much they drive. TerraPass is personalized, allowing you to enter your car’s make, model and how much you drive a year into the site’s carbon calculator. Based on how many tons of carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere each year, TerraPass will sell you a sticker, which ranges from $30 to $80. Of course, this isn’t the end of the story, as TerraPass takes your money and invests it into renewable energy projects – wind farms, methane capture facilities, etc. – which then theoretically offsets the carbon dioxide your driving generates. It’s a new program (it was co-founded by Dr. Karl Ulrich at the University of Pennsylvania in October, 2004), and there isn’t a lot of historical data to prove that it works, but TerraPass claims they’ve 62 million pounds of CO2 pollution out of the air and they allow a third-party to verify their actions.