So, was Bob Lutz right, or was it just bad luck? Just as I picked up a new Mazda MX-5 to drive for a few days following the Vernal Equinox, it has started to snow (and snow, and snow). We've actually had more snow this winter than I can recall in quite a few years. Getting 4-5 more inches of the stuff the day after the official start of Spring doesn't help the argument. However, regardless of what might be happening around here on any given day, (and getting snow on Easter is not at all unusual in Michigan) the preponderance of the evidence still seems to point to the fact that something is definitely happening to our planet. Earth itself will ultimately survive - as it has before - following numerous mass extinctions. The planet is not in peril. Humans and the plant and animal species that we depend on for survival, on the other hand, are. The planet will go on and new species will crop up for several billion more years after we're long gone until the sun decides to pack it in. But if we want to stretch out our time here, we need to be a lot more thoughtful about how we utilize natural resources. Was Lutz right? It probably doesn't really matter. The problems we face with collapsing fish stocks and energy supplies are of far more immediate concern anyway.

You read it right: China has sent a mission to the European Parliament to study CO2 pollution regulations. But let's not make a toast yet: they don't have an agenda and they won't establish any targets for the near future. China says that they have to compromise because of climate change but, like many other Asian countries, they won't be forced into limiting their growth.

Nevertheless, the EU and China are speaking about the exchange of technology for energy efficiency, reducing emissions and energy saving. The European Commissioner for Climate Change, Guido Sacconi said that this was a "very positive message, despite China advocates for keeping the Kyoto Protocol guidelines, which do not imply quantitative efforts to developing countries."

Christian-Democrat representative Karl-Heinz Florenz said that "we could feel China's efforts in mitigating human-derived climate change".

This mission, then, might make China a powerful ally in the upcoming United Nations conference in Bali about Climate Change.

[Source: Europa Press via Econoticias]

Presidential hopeful Fred Thompson voted against ethanol subsidies in the Senate but has changed his tune. Thompson said he supports them now because they're a matter of "national security." Here is exactly what he said:

"I have voted against subsidies in the Senate ... But I think it's a matter now of national security, and we've got to avail ourselves of a lot of different resources, and I think renewable has to be a part of that picture."

Fred also voted Yes on terminating CAFE fuel efficiency standards back then. However, in the video above, Fred says "we've got a lot pieces to this energy puzzle. We're gonna have to use all of them. Fuel efficiency is apart of that." That may a flip-flop in position or good ol' voter "charming." Who knows?

Fred Thompson seems to imply climate change was not real in a joke he made about "alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle." However, in the video below the fold, he says "climate change is real. We have to take it seriously." By seriously, does he mean not telling jokes about climate change? Does he want to get serious at the pump? Nope, Thompson does not support an increase in the gas tax.

[Source: Boston Globe, YouTube]

At AltWheels Boston 2007, I had an interesting conversation with Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar and founder of GoLoco. In the video above, Robin talks about GoLoco, a Facebook web app that allows you to share rides and share the cost of travel with friends online. Robin says ride sharing reduces the cost of travel which, on average, makes up a fifth of a household budget.

Below the fold are two more videos of Robin. In the first video, Robin talks about mandatory GPS in cars. Robin thinks mandatory GPS wireless in cars is just 5 years away but that this is a good thing and it can be made private. In the second video below the fold, Robin talks about something she thinks the press is not reporting enough: We have to level off our carbon emissions with massive efforts before a "tipping point" of 2015.

This story goes to show that the debate on global warming is still raging. Crucial to the debate in many people's minds is not whether the earth is warming, but whether or not man is causing it. That is the notion that four Australian governing party lawmakers are rejecting. Also up for debate is whether or not the lawmakers opinions are molded by the fact that Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, and that the nation is rather dependent on coal as a natural resource. With the abundance of sunlight, wind and the possibility of tapping into the ocean's waves as potential power sources is not lost on all of Australia's inhabitants. The topic of climate change and coal power is expected to play a role in the upcoming elections.

Specifically, the lawmakers are against the idea of setting up "at least one" carbon sequestration systems at one of their coal-fired power plants. Not even just one? Sheesh.

[Source: Physorg]

Something tells me that Ford of America and Ford of India do not share any information or assistance when it comes to advertising and marketing strategies. With all of the thought that apparently goes into advertising, one might think that somebody would have realized that this new ad in India - featuring an SUV and polar bears - might upset a few people. For more commentary on why this ad might be a bit insensitive, click here.

I am not going to add any additional commentary on the ad itself, instead I am going to mention the fact that advertising departments are paid to consider all of the aspects of a possible ad. Did an entire division of people pass this ad through without considering that it may upset a few people? Did they care? Thoughts are, of course, welcome.

Related:

• Ford's new pro-green advertising - ever seen a polar bear fetus?

[Source: Orangehues, thanks Manu!]

Ah yes, the media. The media loves their scandals, debates and tragedies. That would be because the public loves them too. Or, am I wrong? And Global Warming could fall under all three of those categories. It could be a scandal and a tragedy at the same time, in fact, depending on who is doing the research and reporting. Of course, it always turns into a debate. What better to editorialize, then? I really mean that, too. The whole point of an editorial is to get people thinking and talking. You make a point, or pose a question and wait for people to voice their own opinions, in favor or not. And, that is exactly what is happening over at The Truth About Cars right as you read this. If you want to check it out, click here. The subject: the automotive influence on climate change.

[Source: The Truth About Cars]

The International Panel on Climate Change has reached consensus on a report that gives a very dire warning on climate change. Over 2,500 scientists have converged for the conference to approve a report that will provide guidance to governments on how to deal with climate and greenhouse gas emissions. The report projects that poor people will be hit hardest by warming with rising sea levels absorbing coastal areas, and more of the rest being being short of rain and expanding deserts.

Chinese, Russian and Saudi representatives had the greatest objections to the report. They were opposed to mentions of the level of confidence that the climate was changing. The report projects that African countries could wind up spending five to ten percent of their GDP on dealing with the changes, because of problems like water shortages. Temperatures are predicted to rise by 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius over the next century, and the melting of Himalayan glaciers could lead to water shortages in the rivers that it feeds. The bottom line of the report is that climate change is real and happening now and needs to be addressed.

[Source: Reuters]

Not everyone agrees that CO2 is a problem, but those who do believe it is contributing to global climate change, global warming or anything else that is harming the environment like acid rain would like to let you know how to help.

One such organization is the U.K. Department of Transport. Here is their site, showing you how you can help fight the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Find tips on what cars to buy and how to drive them smartly in an effort to do your part.

[Source: U.K. DFT]

The mayor of London, England, Ken Livingstone, has released a new Climate Change Action Plan for the city, that goes beyond the existing congestion charges that have been in place for several years now. Carbon dioxide emissions have stayed flat in London since 1990 thanks to high usage rates for public transport. Currently, transport only comprises 22 percent of total emissions, and this can be improved by up to 30 percent by just getting people to buy the most efficient version of whatever car they choose to drive.

The plan also calls for making London homes more energy efficient and the city government will be offering discount priced attic and wall insulation to residents of the city. Lower income residents can get the insulation free of charge. Businesses will be encouraged to cut energy use by turning off lights and computers at night. Finally, Livingstone wants to move 25 percent of London's energy supply off the national grid to local generated energy systems by 2025. The plan calls for London to reduce CO2 emissions by 33 million tonnes annually by 2025, which would require an annual reduction of 4 percent annually. The whole plan can be found at the London government website at the Read link.

[Source: City of London Government via GreenCarCongress]

Here is a posting that hits on two very controversial subjects: global warming and ethanol as a fuel alternative. Good stuff! In an effort to reach the goal set forth under the Kyoto Protocol, Japan wishes to increase their ethanol production using domestic sourced biomass, such as wood-waste and local grown grains. A recent report by several ministries in the Japanese government puts forth a movement to wean the country off foreign sources of oil and imported ethanol, mostly from Brazil. Another goal as stated in the report is to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions impacting global climate change. In an effort to meet these goals, the report recommends reducing government taxes on ethanol.

[Source: Green Options]

Perhaps President Bush knew what was coming when he decided to check out the Phoenix SUT and a plug-in Toyota Prius last week. According to the the Detroit News, Congress is meeting to discuss Bush's proposed fuel economy changes. To recap, the changes basically call for "reducing gasoline consumption 20 percent by 2017 and increasing fuel economy an average four percent annually beginning in 2009 for passenger cars and 2011 for light trucks."

General Motors claims that they will spend about $40 billion between 2010 and 2017 to reach those targets. Toyota wouldn't mind spending their estimated $8.4 billion, and Honda would spend some $4 billion to reach the same targets. U.S. Rep. John Dingell, (D-Dearborn) hopes to meet some sort of compromise between what Bush proposed and what the automakers would like. He intends to hold at least eight more hearings regarding fuel economy and the "climate change" that Bush spoke of in his State of the Union speech. The total estimate for all carmakers to meet the goals is about $100 billion. Pocket Change! (I'm just kidding)

On March 4th, auto executives will testify before Congress, followed a week later by former vice-president and current environmentalist Al Gore. Nicole Nason, chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration backpedaled testified today that the four percent goal as outlined by Bush was just based on rough estimates and may be unrealistic.

[Source: Detroit News]

At a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chair Henry Waxman (D-California) said, "We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger." According to this article on msnbc.com, "In the past, the White House has said it has only sought to inject balance into reports on climate change."

Editing the papers of scientists should not be handled by editors who are not scientists, I would argue. Here is some of the data provided by the 308 of 1,600 scientists who responded to the survey that is being discussed:

• 43 percent of respondents reported edits during review of their work that changed the meaning of their findings.
• 46 percent felt administrative requirements that impaired climate-related work.
• 67 percent said the environment for federal government climate research is worse now than five years ago.
• 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years

John McCain, (R-Arizona) Barack Obama (D-Illinois), Barbara Boxer, (D-California), Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut) and Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) all are supporting bills to put so-called "carbon caps" in place in the U.S.

Related:

• California more worried about carbon than gasoline demand
• Bush's plan for federal agencies: two percent reduction in petroleum use per year, PHEV purchase required
• State of the Union preview: energy, ethanol, carbon cap?

[Source: MSNBC]

There has been speculation in the last few days that President Bush would, in his State of the Union speech, announce a historic shift in the U.S. climate change policy. It seems that this is not the case. This topic will certainly not help any of the feelings of Tony Blair or Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, who both would like the U.S. to change its policy.

According to Tony Snow, the Whitehouse spokesman, "That's not something we're talking about." He also said, "I want to walk you back from the whole carbon cap story...The carbon cap stuff is not accurate. It's wrong." Instead, President Bush is likely to talk more about hydrogen, ethanol and other technology that supports "the importance of innovation" that the President would like the U.S. to focus on.

According to this story on The Independent, an EU diplomat said, "Basically, the US has to get its own house in order," referring to several U.S. states that have set their own policies separate from Washington. "If they are doing something, then it's a very well-kept secret," according to their unnamed diplomat source.

A side note: remember this skit? I was reminded of it on Global Cool's website.

Related:

• Will Bush make an "historic shift" on global warming during State of the Union speech?
• What I want to hear from Bush in the State of the Union speech RE: energy

[Source: Global Cool and The Independent]