Posted on October 27, 2008
By Shannon Arvizu
From http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/
We live in an exciting time for alternative car technologies. Innovations to increase energy efficiency and decrease unhealthy emissions are emerging at a rapid rate. From the popular Toyota Prius to the sexy Tesla Roadster, new green cars use less (or no) petroleum while satisfying driver demand for top performance.
Purchasing a new green car, however, may not be the greenest choice - particularly if your current vehicle works fine. Proper maintenance of your car (such as properly inflated tires and regularly scheduled filter changes) helps, as does driving at a moderate speed (see fueleconomy.gov for more tips).
A new product on the market, Sabertec's Blade, may also give your car a boost. The Blade is a small attachment that connects to your car's tailpipe. It improves the air flow in the catalytic converter and acts as a filter, capturing toxic exhaust particles that would otherwise circulate into the air. It was originally developed in Curitiba, Brazil (known as one of the greenest cities in South America) for city bus use and has since been adapted for passenger vehicles.
So, just how much cleaner and more fuel-efficient can your car be with Blade? An extensive review by Automotive Testing and Development Services Inc. (an independent lab licensed by the California Air Resources Board) found that Blade improved fuel efficiency on a 2004 Honda Civic an average of 2.7 mpg/city and 5 mpg/hwy. Blade also reduced the CO2 emissions of this vehicle by up to 12 percent.
Blade works best on four -cylinder cars like Honda Civics or Toyota Corollas, but has also shown improvements in light-duty trucks, sedans, SUV s and hybrids. Keep in mind, however, that Blade will only fit on a 1 7/8s- to 2 -inch tail pipe and can be damaged by extreme driving. You can install Blade yourself or have an authorized installer do it for you. Blade retails for $199. For more information, see bladeyourride.com.
Selasa, 23 Desember 2008
Results tagged “energy” from The Green Room
Posted on December 3, 2008By Paul McRandle
From http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/
At the UN climate conference in Poland this week, concerns have been raised that the current economic woes may pose a roadblock to taking the carbon out of our energy sources and investing in greener energy production. However, the real question may be how to avoid short-sighted investments in dirty power plants that have to be replaced as the effects of climate change worsen. It's a question Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. took up Monday evening, speaking at a Lexus Hybrid Living "eco-salon" and fund-raiser for Waterkeeper, where he argued that carbon is the principal drag on the U.S. economy, with $700 billion of US spending going to foreign oil annually, not to mention $1.3 trillion annually in subsidies to the oil industry. If we open up the field of energy production to other sources, he notes, we may spur the same sort of boom in innovative thinking that resulted in the England's industrial revolution following the ban on slavery and the cheap energy it provided.
These innovations might well include the opportunity for homeowners to sell energy back to utilities at market rates, something currently not allowed in any state. To do so, we'll need a "smart" electricity grid, the unglamorous backbone that must be built if we're to make wind and solar our major energy sources. A smart grid would not only make possible the expansion of wind and solar power throughout the states, but would also store that energy for later use. As the Department of Energy points out, if the grid were just 5 percent more efficient, that would have the same impact on global warming as taking 53 million cars off the road. Now that would be good news this week in Poland.
Senin, 22 Desember 2008
Global Warming 101: The Science
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
A “planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth”—that is how former Vice President Al Gore describes global warming. Most environmental groups preach the same message. So do many journalists. So do some scientists.
You have probably heard the dire warnings many times. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from mankind’s use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas is building up in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas—it traps heat that would otherwise escape into outer space. Al Gore warns that global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions could increase sea levels by 20 feet, spin up deadly hurricanes. It could even plunge Europe into an ice age.
Science does not support these and other scary predictions, which Gore and his allies repeatedly tout as a “scientific consensus.” Global warming is real and carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to it, but it is not a crisis. Global warming in the 21 st century is likely to be modest, and the net impacts may well be beneficial in some places. Even in the worst case, humanity will be much better off in 2100 than it is today.
A “planetary emergency—a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth”—that is how former Vice President Al Gore describes global warming. Most environmental groups preach the same message. So do many journalists. So do some scientists.
You have probably heard the dire warnings many times. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from mankind’s use of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas is building up in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas—it traps heat that would otherwise escape into outer space. Al Gore warns that global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions could increase sea levels by 20 feet, spin up deadly hurricanes. It could even plunge Europe into an ice age.
Science does not support these and other scary predictions, which Gore and his allies repeatedly tout as a “scientific consensus.” Global warming is real and carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to it, but it is not a crisis. Global warming in the 21 st century is likely to be modest, and the net impacts may well be beneficial in some places. Even in the worst case, humanity will be much better off in 2100 than it is today.
Red Hot New Book a Must-Read for Climate Realists
Cooler Heads
December 18, 2008
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason"? Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner's Red Hot Lies explodes as many myths as Al Gore promotes.
December 18, 2008
From http://www.globalwarming.org/
From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason"? Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner's Red Hot Lies explodes as many myths as Al Gore promotes.
Meet the New Climate Change Kid on the Block
By David N. Bass on 12.19.08 @ 6:07AM
From http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/12/19/meet-the-new-climate-change-ki/
Barack Obama announced his new energy team at a press conference Monday, sending a subtle slap down to President Bush by saying his administration would "value science" and "make decisions based on the facts."
The four appointments are a precursor to what will be the most enviro-activist administration in American history. Among others, Obama tapped Carol Browner, former EPA chief in the Clinton administration, to head up a new office in the White House designed to coordinate environmental policies. In a move that will please multiple facets of his leftist base, he also picked Nancy Sutley (an open lesbian and current deputy mayor in Los Angeles) to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
The press conference underscored the Obama agenda for curbing so-called catastrophic climate change. That agenda will doubtless extend to supporting nonprofit organizations like the Climate Registry.
If you've never heard of it, don't worry. The California-based nonprofit has kept out of the headlines. But it has the potential to be a major player in the ongoing debate over climate-change policy. It's also a prime example of the snug relationship between environmentalist groups and state governments.
The Climate Registry's mission is simple: convince companies, organizations, state and local governments, and other entities to sign on and report their greenhouse gas emissions. There are several groups devoted to that cause around the country, but the registry, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, is the most far-reaching. Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, nine Canadian provinces, six Mexican states, and three Native American tribes have signed on as members.
Members are not required to report their emissions on a state-, province-, or tribe-wide basis. Instead, they serve as the registry's funding factory, appointing a board member, signing a statement of principles and goals, and paying a voluntary annual fee ranging from $20,000 to $50,000, depending on the state or region's population.
They also serve as a catalyst for recruiting entities within the state, province, or tribe as "reporters." For the privilege of tracking their own emissions, reporters are required to pay an annual membership fee ranging from $450 to $10,000. Nearly 300 entities have joined as reporters nationwide.
The registry has created what it calls a Climate Registry Information System that reporters use to input their greenhouse gas emissions data. The public then has access to the verified emissions reports. The "benefit" for companies is getting a leg up on tracking carbon dioxide emissions in preparation for Obama's inevitable cap-and-trade system.
That brings up the cozy relationship between the registry and state governments. The group's IRS Form 990 is not yet available, but a budget projection circulated by the group estimated $1 million in contributions from member states, provinces, or tribes for the 2008 fiscal year, well over half of the registry's estimated budget.
The funds, ostensibly, are "seed money" to get the registry up and running. Once enough reporters sign on and begin paying dues, the payments will no longer be necessary, supporters say. But stop and consider what that means: state governments across the country are serving as grantors to an out-of-state nonprofit without generating any tangible benefit for taxpayers, aside from (supposedly) fighting the giant boogieman of climate change.
State-level environmental regulatory agencies also have a dubious connection with the registry. In North Carolina, for example, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources sent a letter on agency stationery trying to recruit DENR-regulated companies to join the registry and pay membership fees. Adding to the conflict of interest, agency staffers have used taxpayer funds to travel on behalf of the registry, tried to convince other states to join the fold, and even opened up agency offices for registry recruitment sessions.
The registry claims to be policy neutral, but it's partially funded by grants from climate-change alarmist groups such as the Kendall Foundation, the Merck Family Fund, and the Energy Foundation. Its agenda is clear. In addition to advocating the voluntary reporting system, the group supports state-level mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
Only ten states have yet to join the registry: Alaska, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Texas, Indiana, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. With Obama stepping up efforts to create a national cap-and-trade system -- maybe with the registry at the forefront -- any last holdouts will face enormous pressure.
In the past, Americans have valued liberty above safety. That's changing. Today, we fork out trillions in the name of economic stabilization, surrender civil liberties in the name of fighting the war on terror, and sign away our freedoms in the name of reducing temperatures and sea levels. Forgotten is that the chief purpose of government is securing our God-given liberty, not securing us.
From http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/12/19/meet-the-new-climate-change-ki/
Barack Obama announced his new energy team at a press conference Monday, sending a subtle slap down to President Bush by saying his administration would "value science" and "make decisions based on the facts."
The four appointments are a precursor to what will be the most enviro-activist administration in American history. Among others, Obama tapped Carol Browner, former EPA chief in the Clinton administration, to head up a new office in the White House designed to coordinate environmental policies. In a move that will please multiple facets of his leftist base, he also picked Nancy Sutley (an open lesbian and current deputy mayor in Los Angeles) to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
The press conference underscored the Obama agenda for curbing so-called catastrophic climate change. That agenda will doubtless extend to supporting nonprofit organizations like the Climate Registry.
If you've never heard of it, don't worry. The California-based nonprofit has kept out of the headlines. But it has the potential to be a major player in the ongoing debate over climate-change policy. It's also a prime example of the snug relationship between environmentalist groups and state governments.
The Climate Registry's mission is simple: convince companies, organizations, state and local governments, and other entities to sign on and report their greenhouse gas emissions. There are several groups devoted to that cause around the country, but the registry, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, is the most far-reaching. Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, nine Canadian provinces, six Mexican states, and three Native American tribes have signed on as members.
Members are not required to report their emissions on a state-, province-, or tribe-wide basis. Instead, they serve as the registry's funding factory, appointing a board member, signing a statement of principles and goals, and paying a voluntary annual fee ranging from $20,000 to $50,000, depending on the state or region's population.
They also serve as a catalyst for recruiting entities within the state, province, or tribe as "reporters." For the privilege of tracking their own emissions, reporters are required to pay an annual membership fee ranging from $450 to $10,000. Nearly 300 entities have joined as reporters nationwide.
The registry has created what it calls a Climate Registry Information System that reporters use to input their greenhouse gas emissions data. The public then has access to the verified emissions reports. The "benefit" for companies is getting a leg up on tracking carbon dioxide emissions in preparation for Obama's inevitable cap-and-trade system.
That brings up the cozy relationship between the registry and state governments. The group's IRS Form 990 is not yet available, but a budget projection circulated by the group estimated $1 million in contributions from member states, provinces, or tribes for the 2008 fiscal year, well over half of the registry's estimated budget.
The funds, ostensibly, are "seed money" to get the registry up and running. Once enough reporters sign on and begin paying dues, the payments will no longer be necessary, supporters say. But stop and consider what that means: state governments across the country are serving as grantors to an out-of-state nonprofit without generating any tangible benefit for taxpayers, aside from (supposedly) fighting the giant boogieman of climate change.
State-level environmental regulatory agencies also have a dubious connection with the registry. In North Carolina, for example, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources sent a letter on agency stationery trying to recruit DENR-regulated companies to join the registry and pay membership fees. Adding to the conflict of interest, agency staffers have used taxpayer funds to travel on behalf of the registry, tried to convince other states to join the fold, and even opened up agency offices for registry recruitment sessions.
The registry claims to be policy neutral, but it's partially funded by grants from climate-change alarmist groups such as the Kendall Foundation, the Merck Family Fund, and the Energy Foundation. Its agenda is clear. In addition to advocating the voluntary reporting system, the group supports state-level mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
Only ten states have yet to join the registry: Alaska, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Texas, Indiana, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. With Obama stepping up efforts to create a national cap-and-trade system -- maybe with the registry at the forefront -- any last holdouts will face enormous pressure.
In the past, Americans have valued liberty above safety. That's changing. Today, we fork out trillions in the name of economic stabilization, surrender civil liberties in the name of fighting the war on terror, and sign away our freedoms in the name of reducing temperatures and sea levels. Forgotten is that the chief purpose of government is securing our God-given liberty, not securing us.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)