The House of Representatives passed the energy tax bill yesterday. The White House has threatened to veto the bill, but this one probably won't make it as far as the president's desk. Other bills similar to this energy tax bill died in the Senate but with $102 barrels of oil and $4 gallon of gas not out of the question, some extra political support might be behind the bill this time. Stay tuned.

[Source: Bloomberg]

California bill SB 1374, if passed and signed into a law, would allow any car to join the HOV sticker program as long as that vehicle is carbon neutral. This would mean someone driving alone in a Hummer could legally be allowed into the HOV lane, if the Hummer's emissions were offset. Senator Jim Battin officially proposed the legislation but his press release - which includes lines like "every owner of a polluting, flashy, fuel sucking car" - makes me think he is not serious. The law is starting to grow on me anyway. Why shouldn't a carbon neutral car - even a Hummer - be allowed in the HOV lane?

[Source: LAist]

By law, if a pump in Iowa provides gas that contains ten percent ethanol (an amount that is safe for almost all cars), the pump must have a label stating that the fuel contains ethanol. This can turn off some buyers who might be worried about the alcohol's lower energy content, and that equals lower sales of ethanol. This might change thanks to Iowa State Senator Jack Kibbie, who introduced legislation that would allow gas stations to remove the ethanol identification stickers. Sen. Kibbie says,"My goal is to increase the use of ethanol in Iowa. ... Sometimes, people driving through Iowa on the interstates, who don't know as much about ethanol as we do, see those stickers and say, 'I don't want any of that stuff!' So they put in high octane fuel that costs 10 cents a gallon more."

E85 and other alternative fuels would still require a label, but E10 labels could be removed and consumers could be sold ethanol-blended gasoline without warning. The Des Moines Register spoke with Jim Millick, a Davenport motorist who opposes Kibbie's Senate File 2137. He told the paper, "That is outrageous that they want to obscure the contents of the fuel that we buy in an effort to sell more... Have you ever heard of consumer labeling that actually takes away information from a consumer?" The bill could be debated on the Senate floor next week. Stay tuned for updates.

[Source: The Des Moines Register]

The Orlando Sentinel reports that administrator John Drury (above photo) is excited that the Tavares City Council is lifting restrictions on NEVs [neighborhood electric vehicles] and even putting in some charging stations. John says, "Wouldn't it be a fine day when people are driving NEVs to the train station, then take a train to downtown Orlando?" Corey Lamb of O-Cartz, which rents electric vehicles in Orlando for $3 a ride, says, "This is the way of the future. ... They're environmentally friendly. They're fun and they're safe."

South Alabama's Baldwin County Now reports that B.J. Johnson (yes, that's his real name) of Funny Cars of Gulf Shores, another EV renter, wishes he had it as easy as O-Cartz. B.J. has to prove that NEVs won't cause a problem to a skeptic in Councilman Robert Craft, who says, "Just the fact that it's different from a normal vehicle could present danger. ... I said it last time and I'm telling you now, I think it's a bad idea that is dangerous and unsafe with the congestion problems we already have throughout our peak times of the year."

B.J., a little advice from us to you: move to Orlando.

[Sources: Orlando Sentinel, Baldwin County Now]

California Assemblyman, Ira Ruskin has withdrawn a bill that would have put a one-time fee of $2,500 on the sale price of new gas guzzlers. If it made it into law, it would have been American's first feebate law, which would also provide a rebate of $2,500 for green cars. Ira has tried to enact a similar bill into law with even with considerable industry opposition. He says he will try again but, for now, his California Clean Car Discount Act is dead in the water. California is not alone: very little will be asked of individuals on the national level as well even though studies show feebates work.

Related:

• Drivers will not play a role in carbon law
• Gas guzzler tax coming to the Netherlands
• Israeli government passes "green tax" on cars

[Source: Contra Costa Times]

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that the Israeli government passed a "green tax" on cars Sunday. The tax was first proposed by Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On (pictured) and constructed by Boaz Sofer of the Tax Authority. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says "the state of Israel is doing its utmost to be a leading country in the field of alternative energy, which is the energy of the future."

The tax works by sorting cars into 15 categories on a "green index" based on a 100 "green points" system that describes the car. The more green your car, the less tax you pay. So, buying an electric car will cost you a 10 percent purchase tax while a diesel SUV will be charged 60 percent. These rates remain in place until 2014, then will change to 30 percent for clean cars and 50 percent for dirty ones in 2015-2019.

Bar-On says, "This proposal puts Israel at the forefront of helping to protect the environment. ... We are committed to moving forward with this program, and it will hopefully be used as a springboard for the government to start working on other environmentally-friendly projects."

Related:

• Israel considering making electric vehicles completely tax free
• Rumors become expectations: Renault CEO to arrive in Israel for electric car project presentation

[Source: Jerusalem Post]

The Federal Trade Commission held a public hearing Tuesday (Jan. 8) on how to regulate "green" advertising and they still want to know what you think. You can watch web-casts of the workshop and anyone is invited to submit comments before the January 25 deadline. Details on how to file a comment electronically, by paper or even confidentially can be found at the FTC website here.

As the New York Times reports, the FTC has not updated their green advertising guidelines or "green guides" since 1998. More than $54m was spent last year on carbon offsets, the Times writes, and there are growing concerns about about the level of "green washing" in paid media (i.e advertising that claims to be green or environmental but really isn't). The Times article on the FTC workshops includes many companies using carbon off-sets and the ad above for Volkswagen's Forest. The ad says VW will offset the first year of carbon emission of every car they sold for four months last year. What do you think about that ad?

For once, I am not going to ask you to post your opinion in our comments, tell the FTC what you think instead. Personally, I like Norway's system for regulating green ads but I doubt we would ever do that in the U.S.

[Source: New York Times]

When I read the Detroit News article headlined Michelin responds with 'green' tires for California, an article about Michelin working with and not fighting California over tire regulation I thought, "That's great, a major corporation working with... wait a minute! California actually has a low resistance tire law?" Yes, they do!

In 2003, California signed into law the "World's First Fuel-Efficient Tires Law" and the California Energy Commission had until July 7, 2007 to develop the standards. The law goes into effect in July of 2008. I have to agree with Wired when they say the Commission could have highlighted safety concerns more.

As you can see in the video below, Michelin is big on low-resistance tires and must have seen this as a way to make money but I have to admit: For once, I am little disappointed that a major corporation did not push back a little harder against green regulation. Sure, the law requires labeling and that the market for replacement tires include low-resistance tires. Nothing wrong with more consumer information and greater choice in the market place, right? However, this could be a slippery slope to a CAFE-like law for tires. Readers, am I overreacting or is this a great law?

Related:

• Continental: "Fuel-saving tires might be dangerous"
• Frankfurt 2007 video: Michelin's Energy Saver tire
• Goodyear's greener tires pass EPA certification for SmartWay trucking

[Source: Detroit News, NRDC, Wired]

Starting January 1st, 2008, just a few days from now, it will be illegal to smoke in a car with a minor (someone under the age of 18) in California. The "Smoke-free Cars with Minors" law covers parked cars and cars in motion, and the police can pull you over just to see if you are smoking with a child in the car. California joins three other states in banning smoking in a car with a child and the crime is punishable by a fine of up to $100. A 2006 Surgeon General's Report says there is no safe level for exposure to second hand smoke and children can't exactly defend themselves, but do you think this is an invasion of your personal rights or a good way to clean up the environment inside a car?

[Source: Record Courier, California Chronicle]

Robert Stewart was having sex with a bike in his locked hostel room. Robert said he was drunk and his actions misunderstood but when cleaners knocked and there was no response, they opened the door with a key and saw Robert having sex with a bike. The cleaners called the police, Robert got three years probation and is on the sex offenders list. The BBC website says their report on the story has over a million views and there is a legal debate.

John Scott, human rights expert says "the man involved in this case pleaded guilty to a breach of the peace so these issues of privacy weren't considered by the court. ... This case should not prevent people who want to engage in this sort of activity doing so." So, it's still legal to have sex with your bike in the privacy of a room. Just make sure to do it in a locked room, where the locks have no duplicate keys and you are able to hear a knock.

[Source: BBC News, The Mirror]

In China, you must register video games, blogs, online video, cars and very soon, your bike. In an attempt to cut down on theft, China is moving to a "real name" system for bikes. This is not the first time China has tried bike registration. In the past, China required bike registration with the transportation department, parts inspection, ownership papers from the police and even a license plate! Shockingly, no one bothered because... it's a bike. So, now the government is making the manufactures and bike shops do the work.

Bike manufactures can apply for codes starting October 21. Starting December 1, bike manufactures must print numbers on bikes. Bike shops must record the bike number and "basic information" when bikes are sold, and hand that information over to local government. That's according to a circular jointly released by the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Commerce, the State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, and the State Administration of Industry and Commerce. That's a lot of government departments that really care about bikes.

There are editorials that wonder if numbering bikes will solve the theft of problem, will just lead to a bike tax and whether if it infringes on personal property rights. There are 470 million bikes in China and 4 million bikes (including 700,000 electric bikes) stolen every year, a loss to the bikers of 2 billion yuan ($267 million). From March to June, of the 393,000 stolen bikes recovered by the police, only about half were returned to owners. The new numbering system should make that process a lot easier. So, for future reference, if you want to buy a bike in China, don't forget your ID.

[Source: China Daily]

The United States government is in the early stages of crafting the nation's first carbon cap-and-trade law. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a white paper detailing the scope of the carbon law and one thing is already very clear: drivers won't be regulated directly because there are just too many of us! You can read the entire 22 page white page pdf here. Transportation is discussed on page 13 of the white paper. Here is exactly how the white paper explains why regulating individual drivers won't work.

"Although this sector must be included in the cap, having a downstream point of regulation (i.e, the point were the emissions occur) is not workable. Owners or operators of vehicles, the sources that actually emit greenhouse gases is this sector, are too numerous to include in a cap-and-trade program."

Regulating the transportation sector's carbon emissions will probably work by estimating the contribution of individual drivers. The only question seems to be how much share of the cost of carbon to put on the gas and automobile industry. The white paper ends the transportation section saying "consumer demand is also an important piece of the puzzle that must be addressed."

Who do you think should pay for carbon pollution from cars? 100 percent of car's carbon pollution paid by the consumer? 50 percent paid by car industry and 50 percent gas industry? 33 percent car industry, 33 percent gas industry, and 33 percent consumer?

[Source: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce]

42 gas stations in Wisconsin are suing Utica Energy LLC and Renew E85 ethanol stations for, get this, selling ethanol too cheaply. The gas stations want $12 M and an injunction stopping Renew E85 from selling any more ethanol. Court records say Renew E85 sold the biofuel below a minimum price set by Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act. While there are reasons for price controls, the Unfair Sales Act may not be very good.

The ethanol stations had been warned about the violations of the Act, but Governor Jim Doyle has told the state not to prosecute. The environmental advantages of ethanol are questionable and they have been given waivers on pollution. Tell us what you think: is the Governor right to go easy on ethanol sellers under a bad law or do gas stations need competitive protection against ethanol stations?

[Source: North Western]

Update: Commenter Rgseidl tracked down the law (link is to pdf) and found it's actually 150,000 miles not 120,000. Also, commenter Chris M. points out the law may not apply to the Volt because technically a series hybrid may not be an electric car.

I contacted GM about the recent drive.com.au article which said the operating costs for the Volt would not be much different than a regular gas car. GM was quick to deflate concerns by saying nothing was set in stone. GM is "evaluating several vehicle ownership models" and "have much to learn before a final decision will be made." The full quote is below. That's great because GM is really taking the risk off our hands leasing the battery ... or maybe not.

The above video is the former CEO of GM. He runs an alternative energy company now. In the Bloomberg interview, he mentions an obscure federal and California law that says electric car batteries must last the "life of the car." That means you really don't take any risks if you buy the battery for an electric car. GM has to replace the battery if there are any problems. This could be the real reason GM is considering a battery leasing model.

The full text of GM's response to AutoblogGreen on its plans for leasing the battery:

"As you can imagine, this article generated significant interest in this element of GM's battery strategy. However, I can assure you that we have not made any decisions on purchase price or battery leasing for the Volt. The Volt's cost of ownership (purchase price, fuel costs, cost of battery,etc.) over its life will be significantly different compared to current vehicles and may warrant a different ownership model. The E-Flex team is evaluating several vehicle ownership models that take the initial cost of the battery into account. as well as maintenance, potential upgrades, replacements and end of life considerations. In the end, this may lead to different retail strategies like battery leasing, but we have much to learn before a final decision will be made."



[Source: Youtube, GM]

Anna Talman, 9, noticed it was hard to breathe when cars are idling. "I saw a car idling and thought it would be a problem because it was making it hard for me to breathe" she says. So she did what any other 9 year old would do. Move? No. She started a group, Edmonton's Children-Organized Anti-Idling Recruiters (ECO-AIR), and tried to get a law passed by the Edmonton city council. "When they're idling in front of their house or waiting to pick up their kids from school, or at the drive in at McDonald's, that's when I want to change it," she explains.

She did not get her law but the council did support anti-idling policy for city vehicles and a $140,000 ad campaign against idling. The campaign will create "idle-free" zones and include print, electric advertising and signs reminding drivers to turn off their cars at drive throughs and parking lots. "I'm glad that the motion was passed. I think it will make a difference" responds Anna. But not everyone is happy. Councilman Mike Nickel said he cannot support it. He says, "when it's -40 C out there and you want to leave your car running to keep it warm ... you're going to have the idling police come up to you and tell you to turn off your car?" He also thinks the costs will balloon. "Today it starts at $140,000 and you wait, it will be $250,000 and it will be up to $500,000."

The campaign must still be approved later this year in the budget. Anna says she won't stop trying to get a law passed. "I don't know. That's one thing I'm stuck on to do" she says.

Related:

• Carrick, now age 8, only getting better with his environmental awareness videos
• You might make your own biodiesel, but have you got what this 15-year-old's got?

[Source: Canada.com]