Way back in April of last year, or own Sam Abuelsamid suggested that the Bush Administration would surely leave any EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions to the next President, whomever that may be. It seems that he was right in that assessment, as the EPA is expected to announce later today that it will hold off on creating any specific emissions regulations for the time being. The EPA was told by the Supreme Court in 2007 that it had to either justify its inaction regarding greenhouse gas emissions or come up with new regs. Before this ruling, the government had chosen to remain silent on the issue, instead focusing solely on fuel economy regulations.

The decision to wait on regulating emissions will likely give automakers a bit of time to ready themselves for the rules when they do, in fact, go into effect. We would imagine that the eighteen states, along with other entities such as the City of New York and the Mayor of Baltimore, that are suing the EPA in an attempt to force regulations will be less than pleased with this continued inaction.

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

For several years, Ford has been working to reduce waste, energy use and emissions generated by its manufacturing facilities around the world. Its latest step has been to join to the Climate Registry, a non-profit group that is developing standards for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. The idea is that emissions reporting is useless unless everyone uses the same criteria to determine and record the output. Most of the U.S. states, Canadian provinces and Mexican states have adopted these standards. Companies reporting their emissions can use the same methodology in all the regions that have adopted the TCR regime. To be a member of TCR, Ford (and all other member companies and agencies) will have to measure, independently audit and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions.

[Source: Ford]

It seems that if you are interested in checking air quailty, the mountains in Norway make an excellent choice. Sensors there can detect the carbon readings from a single fox, according to this article. This sensitive detection also allows scientists to tell where certain pollutants are coming from, including those emitted as greenhouse gases from our cars. With the rapid industrialization of China, more greenhouse gases are present in Arctic Norway than ever before. One particular interesting piece from the article is that researchers can tell where automotive exhaust came from due to differences in the formulation of fuel made standard in a particular country.

Also discussed in the article, but unrelated to automobiles, were mercury from the burning of fillings in dead people's teeth, which can be traced to certain Asian countries, and a suggested smoking ban. Pretty interesting stuff fills the air we breathe, wouldn't you say?

[Source: Reuters]

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]

• www.drivecongress.com
• www.drivingamericasfuture.com
• www.grabdemocracybythehorns.com (password protected at this time)

What do all of the above internet sites all have in common? They are all designed to encourage consumers to contact Congress. What shall consumers say to Congress? To "Oppose Unrealistic Fuel Economy Increases," according to one of the sites. The other sites have similar goals, although Chrysler is only targeting their dealerships at this time with their "Grab Democracy by the Horns" site. Drive Congress was created by The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an organization made up of nine manufacturers, or ten if you count Daimler separate from Chrysler already.

The sites all suggest that there are better ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions than focusing on better fuel economy for our automobiles. Will this sentiment be rejected in the face of record high gasoline prices, or will consumers agree that fuel economy and harmful emissions should be kept separate from one another in legislation? Perhaps you should do what they are suggesting and contact Congress. Let them know what you think, one way or the other.

[Source: Detroit News]

This is a pretty compelling picture as far as I am concerned. According to this site, which is where I got the information I'm relaying to you from, says that this balloon, which is attached to the tailpipe of a car in China, is filled with the exhaust from one day's worth of driving. That does not look like a very large displacement car, either, but I have to be honest and admit that I'm not familiar with that car.

If you get a chance to visit the site that was behind the picture, click here. I was interested in some of what they were promoting there, especially the idea of driving a vehicle with a smaller displacement engine. Americans have long been known to always purchase the largest engine available in any particular vehicle, whether they needed the extra power (and subsequent fuel mileage penalty) or not. What are the chances that will change any time soon?

P.S. Sometimes we can have fun with our categories... notice I labeled this one "Carbon Capture"... get it?

[Source: www.20to20.org via Frederik Samuel via Hugg]

Just prior to the UN Climate Change Conference going on now in Nairobi, Kenya, the International Rivers Network released a report that raises some very interesting questions. Titled Fizzy Science the report claims that hydro-electric power and the reservoirs that go with them emit far more greenhouse gases than previously thought.

The premise of the report is that gases such as methane and carbon dioxide that are commonly dissolved in river water, get released from the spillways of dams as the water is churned up going through the turbines. In addition, large quantities of green house gases are emitted from the surface of the reservoirs. When the reservoirs are filled, large quantities of vegetation are typically flooded at the bottom. As this material decomposes it releases large amounts of carbon into the water and eventually the atmosphere.

Frequently cited global warming expert, Philip Fearnside estimates that in 1990, hydropower dams in the Amazon caused between 3 and 54 times more global warming than modern natural gas plants generating the same amount of energy. Before we start relying on more hydro-electric power, maybe we should be looking at these claims more closely and looking at other technologies like reforming all the methane coming from our land-fills and livestock farms into hydrogen and sequestering the carbon back into the earth. The full report is available as a pdf for download.

[Source: International Rivers Network via TreeHugger.com]

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]