Perhaps the law of unintended consequences has struck again. Or perhaps we really don't have a clue about what might be causing the earth's atmospheric temperature to rise. Either way an interesting new theory has popped in the study about what may be causing global warming. It seems that all the progress made to clean up skies over the last few years may be a contributing factor to more solar radiation reaching the ground. Skies over North American and European cities have gotten dramatically clearer since the 1960s. Aerosolized atmospheric particles have dropped by more than sixty percent in the last three decades in Europe while the amount of solar radiation has gone up. It now appears that the pollutants may have been directly reflecting radiation. Previously it had been thought that clouds seeded by the particles were reflecting the suns rays but current data is showing little impact on solar radiation on cloudy days. The new studies imply that the effect of reduced atmospheric pollution may actually account for half of the global warming effect. It looks like the more we learn the less we really know.

[Source: New Scientist]

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.

According to an article written by Paul Crutzen (who won the Chemistry Nobel Prize in 1995) in British magazine "Chemistry World," biofuels increase global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Crutzen's main argument to support this is that the increase of biofuel crops is producing twice as much nitrous oxide (N2O) as before. Nitrous oxide goes then to the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect. The amount of N2O produced by these crops is so important that it offsets all benefits obtained from not using fossil fuels.

Keith Smith, coautor of the report and scientist at the University of Edimburgh, says "The importance of this article lays on the unexpected side effects of the use of biofuels [...]. In fact, its use is not beneficial because it affects adversely our climate." The article states that biofuels produce more nitrogen than expected (between 3 to 5 percent more), which is twice as much as the International Panel on Climate Change authorises.

[Source: Europa Press via Econoticias]

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]

I'm not sure how I feel about writing this... I mean, I've never been inspired to do anything by Lindsay Lohan before. I'm not so sure that I want to be either, but oh well. Unlike (prepare for an obscure reference) Isabelle Tyler from The 4400, I have only had one chance to grow up in this world, and I have seen the media in general focus largely on matters that do not... uh, matter. Is this how it was for the rest of our readers? Has anything changed? I know that there was the hippy movement back in the '60s and '70s when my parents were growing up, and to some extent, the green movement today seems a bit like that. Back then, there were any number of suitable "causes" to get behind, and the same is true today. Sometimes, smaller groups choose to focus on one in particular, but, by and large, the media seems to focus on celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. Even we have gotten in on the game, because our readership is interested. Lohan wonders why. She even feels bad about it. Lindsay would rather have the focus on "the other things that are important, like global warming." So, is she right? For whatever reason, we, as a society, do care what she's doing. If we didn't, it wouldn't be on the news. Deny it all you want, but I can say with certainty (because I can see the numbers) that our posts on celebrities tend to get just as much, if not more, traffic than our posts on what really matters. To be honest, though, I've decided that I am all right with it. Honestly, I wouldn't have written about Jennifer Aniston, Paris Hilton or now Lindsay Lohan if I didn't care, so I am just as guilty as those who choose to read about them. So, I guess the thing to do is be entertained by those trivial pursuits and to really care about the important stuff. Our brains are powerful enough to sift through it all and decide what to focus in on. So, let's get back to global warming now, shall we?

Side note: obviously, whatever Lindsay might have done to try and get the spotlight off of here and on global warming, it must have backfired. That quote was made before her last run-in with the police.

[Source: Ecorazi]

According to Michael Abberton, a scientist at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in the U.K., "there are approaches within plant breeding that can lead to reduced emissions." How is that, you might be wondering? Are we talking about a new plant-based fuel source? Not exactly, at least, not for your car. We are talking about cows. Besides being a favorite statistic to quote for those who would rather not buy an efficient car, cows really do emit greenhouse gases as they digest food. "It is actually through belching rather than the other end," said Abberton. So, in an effort to make plant matter easier for cows to digest, Abberton and his fellow researchers are trying to develop new varieties of the foods which cows choose to eat. This article says that "the average dairy cow belches out about 100 to 200 litres of methane each day", which "makes up 37% of methane and 67% of nitrous oxide emissions in the U.K." That's obviously plenty to be worried about, so there definitely is more to consider than just cars when it comes to greenhouse gases. Perhaps it'll be easier to change our driving habits versus the cow's eating habits! Maybe we should just sprinkle some Beano on the ground?

[Source: USA Today]

U.S. Representative Ed Markey, (D-Mass), who is head of the Select Committee on Energy Independence And Global Warming (whew), proposed the "Plug-in Hybrid Opportunity Act of 2007" yesterday. The plan would give a 35 percent tax break to hybrid owners who purchase and install the components to convert their vehicles to plug-ins. Perhaps this all sounds familiar, which makes sense when you consider the (ridiculous sounding) "Fuel Reduction using Electrons to End Dependence On the Mideast Act of 2007", named so they could cleverly call it the "FREEDOM Act" for short. That plan would have given consumers $7,500 in tax credits for making the plug-in conversion, and was proposed by the bipartisan group of Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Barack Obama (D-Ill). The specific language was removed from the energy bill which was recently passed. Will it make a comeback? Who knows... but take a look at this article and let us know what you think, that is, if you have an opinion. Here, I'll start off by giving an opinion of my own: including Rob Lowe in on the hearing is a dumb gimmick. OK, your turn!

The Auto Alliance, oftentimes the "bearer of auto-related bad news", is acting as the mouthpiece of the major automakers (and their dealers) once again. We already told you that Toyota doesn't like the legislation, and apparently neither do the other manufacturers. They cite the fact that the warranty will be voided if the conversion is done, and even suggest that emissions might be worse afterward. I honestly can't see how that would be true, but I suppose that when changes are made to the vehicle's on-board computer, or ECU, that it could negatively impact the emissions. More testing would obviously be necessary.

Of course, there is no law against purchasing the components to switch your hybrid to a plug-in, and this legislation would support that effort. Have you ever heard the saying "Sacrifices to the God of Speed"? Well, would you be willing to make sacrifices to the God of Green? How about if there was a big tax incentive to do so?

Related:

• Three Senators unveil pro-plug-in hybrid FREEDOM Act
• CalCars: Toyota does not approve of plugging in your Prius
• EDTA president says plug-in bill failure had nothing to do with PHEV technology
• What about celebrating dependence on this fourth of July?

[Source: Detroit News]

Reduce, reuse and recycle. That's the key to both the lives of regular people, and the Ninja. If we are to coexist on this planet (hopefully they will continue to allow most of us to do so) we need to keep our planet alive.

One thing I did not realize was how much the role of emissions in climate change has been overplayed. Apparently, it's mostly due to boy bands and particularly Justin Timberlake. I can't say I'm surprised. As for taking steps against him, well, there are other blogs for discussing that. And for those of you still using a '78 Volvo to get your killing done, consider shrinking your carbon footprint by using a much more economical sword, and try to get your body count up to around 28 kills/shuriken, the International Order of Ninjas' Corporate Average Mortality Economy (CAME) standard.

Thank you, Ninja. Your contributions of ninja knowledge are changing the world one video podcast at a time.

[Source: Ask a Ninja via YouTube]

It's not all bad, after all. Yes, global warming is getting noticeably worse (dunno if it's related, but I've been caught twice in the last two days with my windows and sunroof open when random torrential downpours came out of nowhere... I hate Chicago). Yes, there are more and more cars on roads worldwide every day that pollute the earth. Yes, the feds are making demands of fuel efficiency that some automakers may not be able to meet, with dire consequences. But actually, in the last ten years, cars have only become cleaner. In fact, according to the SMMT Annual CO2 Report, we've saved an increasing amount of carbon emissions each year, and the cumulative savings broke over five million tons last year. With vehicles getting LEV, ULEV and SULEV emissions ratings these days, it really shouldn't be that surprising, but it's just nice to have some good news once in a while.

[Source: SMMT]

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]

Whether or not you believe in global warming, nitrogen-oxides, or NOx, definitely does contribute to acid rain and smog, which are not debatable. Because NOx is emitted in large quantities from the exhaust of diesel engines, something needs to stop it from entering our atmosphere. One way to do this is with urea, which is being used in the Bluetec systems installed by various automakers. Because people don't like to think about carrying around a container of urea (think urine, although it is usually created chemically, not gathered "naturally"), it is often referred to as Adblue, and because it is a source of ammonia, must be metered properly as ammonia is rather toxic by itself. Are there any other solutions?

The Chemical Engineering Division of Argonne National Laboratory in the U.S. has come up with a possible alternative to ammonia and urea. Their process uses Cu-ZSM-5, a zeolite with copper ions attached within its micropore structure, "with an external coating of cerium oxide", according to Christopher Marshall, who helped develop the technology. The technology also does not contain platinum, which is expensive and not compatible with the older diesel fuels which contained high amounts of sulphur.

This catalyst is currently under testing, but is proving to work out well enough that Argonne is expecting to have the product commercially available in as little as two years. I think it sounds pretty promising myself, because while I don't mind using urea at all, I think it is good that the consumer would not be left in charge of being sure that the Adblue tank was not empty.

[Source: Argonne National Laboratory]

Anything special about April 22nd? Why, yes... I'm glad you asked. April 22nd is Earth Day. For much of the country, the end of April also brings with it travel plans, as the weather is getting nicer, days are getting longer and the desire to get out of the house gets stronger. With that in mind, Colorado-based ecotour outfitter Natural Habitat Adventures has issued a News Release identifying "5 Cool Earth Day Travel Tips". Interested in finding out how to green up your trips this Spring? Click here and see if any of their suggestions can fit into your plans.

[Source: PRNewswire via Hugg]

How could I not share this one with you guys? I know that global warming is not universally accepted among scientists or the average Joe, but does that mean we should all just assume there is no problem and go about our daily lives without questioning our actions? Is that what this billboard from Spurt Aviation is trying to suggest, or is supposed to be pure satire? I'm not entirely sure. What do you think, is this funny or just in bad taste?

[Source: Spurt Aviation via Lite Green via Hugg]