The NYTimes has published another of those articles about the IPCC saying that we - the US and China especially - have got to do something about global warming by 2012 or the penalties for our inaction will greatly exceed the costs of our taking action as individuals and nations, changing our personal and national lifestyles. President Bush has joined the chorus of national leaders because his opposition to the Kyoto Accords up to now has been the fact that it gave developing countries a free ride, placing the burden on developed countries only. That is no longer so.

I tend to agree with scientists though I don't trust their predictions totally. 2012 could be 2008 or 2019 for all I know. It could be 2005. But it is growing harder and harder to find credible scientists or politicians who will strongly dispute Global Warming (but Sen. Inhofe still appears in the media).

What does all this have to do with you, dear reader? Well, by your reading this far you are part of the technically savvy, younger, educated demographic. You are the early adopters, the trend setters, the persons others ask about their personal transportation decisions. After all, this is AutoblogGreen. In my case, thinking and acting green is not a hobby or a sideline, it is what I have been doing since 1980.

Back in the 1980s or 1990s, there was a TV ad featuring an experienced auto technician. His refrain about auto maintenance was pretty clear: "You can pay me now (to maintain your car properly), or you can pay me later (to repair some major failure.") Seems the stakes are much higher these days. The voice we are hearing is no longer the savvy technician. Perhaps the IPCC is channeling Mother Nature. Back in the same time period, there was another TV ad featuring this symbol of our total world. It said, "Don't mess with Mother Nature." Can you hear it too?

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]

I'm sure that by now, all of us are familiar with Al Gore and his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". You probably also know that automakers, scientists and politicians are busy in Washington making decisions on what steps, if any, to take to combat global warming and the greenhouse gases that are emitted from our exhaust pipes, factories and the like. While reading over some of the statements and testimony in the hearings, something really caught my eye. According to Ralph Hall, a Republican from Texas, the suggested cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases amount to an "all-out assault on all forms of fossil fuels" that could eliminate jobs and hurt the economy. That sounds pretty serious, and I was wondering if any of our readers would like to comment on that. I have some opinions of my own, and perhaps I will write an editorial about it in the next few days if you readers are interested. Let me know, and let us all know what you personally think.

[Source: The New York Times]

Notice the words "Global Warming" were not mentioned during the State of the Union address, but we did hear the words "global climate change". What is the difference? One is burned into the public psyche and the other isn't; one sounds worse than the other. But, really they mean the same thing for our purposes. Have you ever watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? I must be honest here and let you all know that I am not into politics or politicians at all. Go ahead and ask me for an opinion and you are likely to hear "I have no opinion on that". Go ahead and find out yourself if you want... ask me, I dare you. Anyway, like I said, not into politics, but if you have seen the movie and still don't think that global warming is happening, please explain to me in the comments what I am missing here. Again, only if you have seen the movie and don't think global warming is real.

Here are a few recent stories on global warming in general. All of these stories were found using Google news. All of these stories were from the last 48 hours.

• Experts predict Alps' glaciers will melt
• Climate change: Public concern is rising fast
• Global Warming Serious for 70% of Americans
• Increasing Renewable Energy in U.S. Can Solve Global Warming
• The world must urgently face up to the global violence and conflict that would result from rapid climate change, warns Tony McDermott, adviser to Al Gore
• Strong Actions Needed After Bush's Warning on Global Warming

What is the point of all that? Global warming is for real, kids. Would you like to do something to help? Keep reading this site, and when the time comes to replace you car, think long and hard about your impact on the environment. If you don't care, you probably are not reading this site, but, if you really don't care then don't have any kids.

[Source: Google News]

Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal published an interview with President Bush that focused on energy policy. You can just about guess what he says without even reading the article. These two reports from Reuters and AFX (via Forbes), however, each take a bit of a different approach with the interview, so we're off to the source.

Bush is generally optimistic about the country's current status and its ability to deal with the energy problem and describes his administration's approach as multifaceted. He says that ultimately, our cars will be fueled by hydrogen that is formed with nuclear energy, but in the meantime, we need to focus on ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, plug-in hybrids and the encouragement of energy conservation. He doesn't specifically mention biodiesel at any point, but the interviewer does and the President incorporates it into his answers.

Bush says that government spending will target the bottlenecks in the alternative fuel production process, and gives examples focused on ethanol. He defines the first bottleneck as transportation, or getting the fuel from the plant to the pumps. The second is convenience for consumers, that is, more pumps in more areas. By tackling these issues, he says we will "affect" global warming.

In addressing climate change and emissions specifically, he says that the country doesn't need to implement or enforce emissions caps. He says, "So long as we're meeting the targets... then I think that we ought to pursue the current track we're on." He even goes as far as to say, "We're taking the lead when it comes to the global warming issue." The only sense in which I think this is actually true would be that the U.S. is leading the rest of the world in greenhouse gas emissions, but I don't think that's what he actually meant.

Instead of addressing the administration's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol at this point, the interviewer abruptly changes the subject to the status of the domestic automakers which we won't get into here.

The AFX article on the Forbes website offers only a very brief summary of the interview focusing on Bush's optimistic outlook on alternative fuels. The Reuters article, on the other hand, takes a much more critical approach and suggests that it means little to meet emissions targets when those targets are set too low. The reporter quotes Vicki Arroyo, director of policy analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who believes that the U.S. should be setting an example for industrialized nations saying, "We're on target for the status quo."

Definitely take a look at the Reuters article if you get a chance. Here's the link for the WSJ interview, but it requires a subscription. As for Forbes, they're on the fringe of establishing a bad reputation around here.

[Source: Reuters]