The debate over global warming is something that's a bit tough to wrap ones head around. There are a lot of facts, and even more opinions on the subject. While there is a general scientific consensus that the earth is warming, the reasons and the role humans play in it is the subject of near endless debate. If you think global warming is tough to understand, try to imagine what a movie that blends documentary, mockumentary and reality TV styles would be like. Now imagine that this film tries to explain global warming and you might get what Sizzle, premiering July 19 at the Outfest Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, is all about.

The film follows the quest of Randy Olson - Dr. Randy Olson - to make the film (yes, it's meta from the get-go). At first, it's a little confusing when the documentary style blends into obvious set-up jokes (i.e., we see shots of something happening that simply would not be possible with only one camera), but the blending effect of actually grew on me as the film progressed.

I'll get into some details - and you can watch the trailer - after the break.

[Source: Sizzle]

Scientists challenge today's biggest and most dangerous lie

A few months ago, I was asked to speak to a group of engineers and researchers toiling on high-tech projects under the auspices of USCAR (United States Council for Automotive Research), the umbrella organization for collaborative research among Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. The occasion was an annual luncheon where awards and recognitions are handed out for successes, extraordinary efforts and hard work well done.

Hot news at that time was Toyota's potentially passing GM in global sales...one more major milestone in the woeful declines of General Motors, "Detroit" and industrial America in general. But I noticed no one reporting the pertinent fact that Toyota sells some 2.5 million vehicles a year in its highly protected home market, to GM's next to none. Or that GM handily outsells Toyota nearly everywhere else, including here in the U.S.

Then I saw a cable-news panel of supposedly smart investment advisors attributing Detroit's ongoing woes to inferior quality and fuel economy. These tired, old misperceptions, blithely communicated as facts, provided inspiration for my talk, "Lies and Misperceptions."

Following a brief introduction, I asked the group for a show of hands: "How many believe that import-vehicle quality is better than domestic?" Not one hand went up. "Japanese vs. domestic?" Still none. Good! I cited some proof from J.D. Power and other quality surveys. "Imports deliver better fuel economy than domestics." Still no hands. Excellent! "An 'American' car is one built in America." A scattering of hands. I suggested that an "American" vehicle is one that wears a domestic brand, regardless of assembly location, because it supports U.S.-maker headquarters jobs (not just assembly and sales jobs), and the money it brings stays in this country to support this economy and that American company.

At Witz' End continues after the break.

U-turn. Waking up. Flip flop. Call it what you want (the Washington Times, headed by the very strange Sun Myung Moon, called it "changing course"), but the White House might be getting ready to call on Congress to pass a bill that deals with global warming. According to the Mooney Times (the only paper that seems to have talked to anyone - every other source online just references the Times article), White House officials are fearing a "regulatory nightmare" - thanks to those lawsuits over the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, for example - if they don't pass a law quickly. White House spokesperson Dana Perino said the regulations were headed into "train wreck" territory. One anonymous official said that the administration hopes that "the debate over [global warming] is over, and it is time to do something." O rly?

The Times writes that Republicans in Congress apparently think the White House is "making a mistake" by going down this road. Funny, they didn't speak up all the other times mistakes were made.

[Source: Washington Times, ]

As TalkingPointsMemo put it, "no Bush Administration official, current or former, can hold a candle to EPA chief Stephen Johnson when it comes to chutzpah." Why would TPM say something like this? Well, do you remember the Supreme Court's decision that the EPA would, indeed, need to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions? It happened exactly one year ago today. Since that time, the EPA has found ways to slow down the process and Johnson has now come up with an unhelpful scheme to delay any action. Seriously delay.

WardsAuto reports that by opening up the decision to public comments, Johnson "could delay regulation until as late as 2009." Two years to take action on cleaner air? That's a Bush Administration official for ya. U.S. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who's no fan of regulating automakers, said, "I recognize that the current Clean Air Act may not be the best mechanism for regulating greenhouse gases. But it is puzzling and disappointing that the Bush Admin. hasn't offered an alternative or joined the effort to design and enact comprehensive climate-change legislation." When the Dingellsaurus is on your case for not taking action on climate change, you're a rare breed.

[Source: WardsAuto, TalkingPointsMemo]

Sometimes you read the newspaper and all you can do is shake your head. In an article that begins with a future scenario of Greenlanders putting away their dog sleds and transforming from reindeer hunters to oil platform workers, The Age offers up an article that informs us of one of the silver linings of global warming: 50 billion more barrels of oil. Excuse me while I light a cigar.

Apparently Greenland is practically oozing oil but there has always been this pesky thick layer of ice standing between it and the humans wanting to exploit this "resource." Now, thanks to rising temperatures from higher CO₂ levels, this black gold bonanza will soon be within the reach of oil companies. In fact, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Husky Energy have already been awarded exploration licenses and are busy rubbing their grubby hands studying seismic data to find the best drilling sites. While it goes on to discuss the huge headache this drilling will probably cause for Greenland-Danish relations, The Age mentions nothing about the consequences of the higher CO₂ levels burning this black stuff will cause.

[Source: The Age]

Another day, another pair of studies warning of the dire consequences of inaction on greenhouse gas reduction. This time the admonition is even stronger than the last. On the bright side, they aren't saying we have to cease traveling, just stop emitting greenhouse gases to do it. On the not-so-bright side, according to the article in the Washington Post, even that Herculean effort won't be enough to completely stop the warming trend for several centuries. There still seems to be some time to act though in order to avoid the worst warming effects.

Action of this nature doesn't take place without political impetus and so the Post briefly discusses the CO₂ reduction goals of each of the current presidential candidates as well as those of several other political figures. Mr. Obama has the most ambitious intentions: 80 percent by 2050. While that's pretty good, it's not the 100 percent recommended. Maybe some more studies (and your calls and letters) will encourage them to aim higher.

To read abstracts from the two studies for yourself, make the jump.

Wall Street Journal blogs about GM CEO Rick Wagoner recent talk to reporters in Washington about GM chairman Bob Lutz's recent comment that global warming is "a total crock of sh*t." Wagoner backed away from the comment, saying that "the comments weren't coming out of the company" and "I would have preferred to pass on the comment." Wagoner didn't back away from Lutz, though, calling him "the clear leader of GM's push to develop extended-range battery-powered hybrid vehicles."

So, what does Wagoner think about global warming? Wagoner says "the data is pretty clear that the temperature on the earth is rising." Saying the globe is warming is quite different than saying humans are a significant contributer to that warming. The "non-confrontational" Wagoner, as the Journal describes him, has never said he believes in global warming or not (see 37 minutes into the video below the fold).

What's GM doing about global warming? Wagoner says "it makes sense for us to put the business in a place where can respond productively." Wagoner also says that "a lot of things need to be done to address CO₂" and that GM is investing "a huge amount of money" to fulfill the company's responsibility as a big player in society. In the past Wagoner has said electric cars don't look like the answer but GM has come around to the idea.

[Source: Wall Street Journal]

Remember when GM's Bob Lutz called global warming a "total crock of sh*t"? Well, that comment wasn't a slip and the blowback sure didn't cause Lutz to apologize or somehow say, "see, what I meant was..." It's awful difficult to equivocate after a remark that direct, anyway. Lutz wrote on his blog Thursday that his personal opinions on global warming don't mean that GM isn't totally serious about building cars so they don't play any role in the environmental debate.

You can read the whole thing over at Fastlane, but I wanted to highlight his opening line, which says, "It amazes me sometimes what kinds of things seem to 'catch on' out there." If Lutz was in any way surprised that calling global warming a bunch of sh*t will get people mad at you, maybe he shouldn't be in charge of trying to educate people about GM's green message. By saying he was surprised to find out that global warming is a topic people care about, Lutz proved - and now continues to prove - he's the wrong man for the job.

[Source: Reuters, Fastlane]

According to D Magazine, at a private lunch, GM chairman Maximum Bob Lutz said global warming is a "total crock of shit." Bob adds "I'm a skeptic, not a denier. Having said that, my opinion doesn't matter." Speaking about the battery-driven Volt, Lutz said, "I'm motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO₂ [argument]." At the lunch Bob also said hybrids like the Prius make "make no economic sense" and the Volt is exciting for him because "it's the last thing anybody expected from GM." Don't hold back Bob, tell us what you really think.

UPDATE: Lutz doesn't back down.



Related:

• Bob Lutz video: it's "immaterial" who's first on EVs, guarantees "internal" release date for Volt
• Videos: Bob Lutz says Toyota will have egg on its face come Easter
• Bob Lutz has egg on his face: drivable Volt in June

[Source: D Magazine via Jalopnik]

Although it might not be a surprising revelation, some investigators in the Center for Development and Environment Research at the University of Oslo have published a report that quantifies and specifies what's the real effect of development and the environment. According to this report, transportation is responsible for 15 to 30 percent of the CO₂ and O₃ (ozone) that has been released to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The report considers these two gases as the most harmful and responsible from the greenhouse effect, and they both come out from tailpipes.

As our readers know, CO₂ is the result of the combustion of any hydrocarbon. Ozone is what they call a "secondary pollutant", which is released to the atmosphere as a consequence of reactions where nitrogen oxydes (NOx) are involved. NOx are released with diesel fumes. The current Kyoto Protocol does not include any reference to NOx or CO (carbon monoxide).

The report points directly at road transport as the most important contributor since the end of the 19th Century, followed by air transport. Other means, such as railways, have reduced their impact in recent years. Remarkably, the report also finds that maritime transport might "cool" the planet in the medium term because of its emissions of SO₄ and CO, which might reflect solar radiation.

[Source: ABC via Madrimasd]

Apparently, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee hasn't met an energy source he doesn't like. According to a new article in Salon, Huckabee "praises just about every energy source you can think of -- nuclear, "clean coal," wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass, biodiesel, corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic areas, and, yes, conservation too."

That's a lot of praise from one man. But using all the energy sources in the world doesn't mean we should use them wantonly, Huckabee says. God, Huckabee claims, wants us to stop global warming. Salon's Amanda Griscom Little called up the former Arkansas governor for a little bit more information on why Christian conservatives should be on the lookout for ways to save energy. Huckabee said a lot of things that AutoblogGreen will be interested in, so I recommend reading the whole interview. I'll pull one quote to whet your appetite:

Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it's important to me to say to my fellow believers, "Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us." We can't justify destroying a planet that doesn't belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it.

Right. To me, that means things like not drilling in ANWR. But, hey, the Bible can be read in a lot of different ways, right?

[Source: Salon / Amanda Griscom Little]

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]