(Source: Jalopnik)

Image Courtesy: Jalopnik

Now that the President has signed the “Cash For Clunkers” into a bill, a lot of you may be thinking hard about trading your old meta for a shiny new one.  Through various articles Transportgooru has already discussed in great lengths about the details associated with the Cash for Clunkers, including the eligibility criteria for trading your old vehicle.

To add to that, our good friends at Jalopnik have put together this awesome list (see below), which I think is a must read for anyone who is contemplating a trade under Cash for Clunkers program.  Here is the list in reverse order.

5.) Buy A Clunker Now!

Some unscrupulous sellers may try and convince you to buy a clunker for a few hundred dollars with the promise of being able to trade it in for a $4,500 voucher. In reality, if you haven’t owned your car and kept it running and insured for a year you’re not eligible. Don’t buy a beater unless you want to keep it for a while.

4.) Trade In Your Car Early! –

We’ve read reports on forums of people already taking advantage of the Cash for Clunkers bill. In reality, they’re being taken advantage of. The law has been signed, but the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration hasn’t finalized the rules. It probably won’t go into affect until after July 24th. If you are being offered a “voucher” on your clunker you’re really just getting money for your trade-in, which the dealer can then resell. The most you lose is your car, but the dealer could face a fine of up to $15,000.

3.) Scrap A Car Worth More Than The Voucher

The used car market isn’t great right now, but this doesn’t mean your vehicle doesn’t have some value. Make sure to check the value of your car using a resource like KBB before trading in an older car that, it turns out, is worth more than $4,500 or $3,500 on the open market. Dealers have a greater incentive to sell you a new car and scrap your old one than to get the value of your trade-in “clunker.”

2.) Get Denied For Other Discounts

The voucher program is not designed to be a stand-alone discount program, meaning you’re still eligible for whatever other discounts automakers are offering (and there are a lot of those). With 0% financing and thousands cash back you’re getting cheated if you just get the value of your trade-in off a new car. The average incentive, according to Edmunds, was $2,930 for June. So you could possibly get $4,500 + $3,000 off of a new car.

1.) Avoid Moving Up To A More Profitable Class

If you own a truck or SUV you can use your voucher to trade it in for a car and, likely, get a larger voucher. Many dealerships will want to put you into a new truck because they’re more expensive than most cars, but if you don’t need a truck you can trade your old one in and find an inexpensive car with 10 MPG better fuel economy, which qualifies you for $4,500. For example, if you’ve got a 1991 V6 Ford F-150 you can trade it in for a $15,000 2009 Ford Focus for your kid and get the full $4,500 off, instead of paying upwards of $20,000 for a new truck and only getting a $3,500 voucher.

(Source:  Copyranter via Dvice via Gizmodo)

Image Courtesy: Gizmodo

This bus stop ad for Amnesty International’s anti-domestic-abuse campaign is installed in Hamburg, Germany. It is equal parts clever and shocking: when you look at the photo, it’s a smiling couple; when you look away, it’s a dude punchin’ a lady.

The billboard works by scanning its proximity with an eye-tracking camera, which triggers an image switch on the display panel when it senses someone looking at it. The change only occurs after a brief delay, so that observers understand what’s going on, and get the message.  Brilliant!

TransportGooru Musings:  It reminds me of  a scene from one of the sci-fi movies  (I think it is Minority Report) where a hero is walking through the Mall and the wall mounted display consoles will recognize the his identity and start showing voice and video advertisements that are tailored to his consumer profile (the ads sell a particular product based on the person’s previous buying habits, or something like that).   This Amnesty Ad campaign brings us one step closer to that stage where information will be tailored and delivered on the spot  based on the individual viewer’s personal preferences/consumer profile sitting in a database somewhere (this is not even remotely possible now because the behavioral & purchase patterns of the consumer should be captured and mapped in a single database first, which means privacy issues and other such crap needs to be addressed; we are talking big ticket issues data ownership, privacy, and other such public policy issues).  But it is big money in the making for whoever wanting to do this!

(Source: Wikipedia, AOPA Blog, Hoax-Slayer.com)

For many of us, there exists on the world map a small state called Gibraltar, which is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula andEurope at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north. The Gibraltar Airport is 1,600 feet from the city, the shortest commute of any major airport in the world. One would naturally ask the question how difficult it is to operate and land aircrafts when the airport is so close to the city.  British Gibraltar has very little area, and the important airport runway takes up a major portion of land. To drive from Gibraltar to Spain, vehicles must cross the runway.The picture below (taken by a Cessna Pilot as he approached for landing) shows you what happens in Gibraltar where pedestrians and vehicles share the space with aircraft on the tarmac.

Image Courtesy: AOPA

(Source: U.S. Government Acocuntability Office)

Why GAO Did this Study

In 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) began an effort to implement a standard departmentwide travel system—the Defense Travel System (DTS). GAO has made numerous recommendations aimed at improving DOD management, oversight, and implementation of DTS.

Image Courtesy: Apture

GAO was asked to:

• Assess the actions DOD has taken to implement GAO’s prior recommendations;
• Determine the actions DOD has taken to standardize and streamline its travel rules and processes;
• Determine if DOD has identified its legacy travel systems, their operating costs, and which of these systems will be eliminated; and
• Report on DOD’s costs to process travel vouchers manually and electronically.

To address these objectives, GAO (1) obtained and analyzed relevant travel policies and procedures, and documents related to the operation of DTS and (2) interviewed appropriate DOD and contractor personnel.

What GAO Found

While the department has made progress in improving the efficiency of its travel operations by implementing DTS and revising its processes and policies, unresolved operational issues continue to exist. DOD has taken sufficient action to satisfactorily address 6 of the 14 recommendations GAO made in 2006 pertaining to unused airline tickets, restricted airfares, testing of system interfaces, and streamlining of certain travel processes. More effort is needed to address the remaining 8 related to requirements management and system testing, utilization, premium-class travel, and developing an automated approach to reduce the need for hard-copy receipts to substantiate travel expenses. For example, in the area of requirements management and testing, GAO’s analysis found that the display of flight information by DTS is complicated and confusing. This problem continues because DOD has yet to establish DTS flight display requirements that minimize the number of screens DOD travelers must view in selecting a flight.

The 1995 DOD Travel Reengineering Report made 22 recommendations to streamline DOD’s travel rules and processes. GAO found that DOD had satisfactorily addressed all 22 recommendations. For example, DOD has mandated the use of commercial travel offices (CTO), established a single entity within DOD—the Defense Travel Management Office—to contract with CTOs for travel services, and has begun modifying CTO contracts as they become subject to renewal to standardize the level of services provided.

According to DOD officials, except for locations where DTS has not yet been deployed, DTS is used by the military services and all 44 defense agencies and joint commands to process temporary duty (TDY) travel vouchers. The department uses two legacy systems to process:

• TDY travel vouchers at locations where DTS is not yet deployed and
• Civilian and military permanent duty travel vouchers since DTS currently lacks the functionality to process these vouchers.

DOD provided us with fiscal year 2008 expenditure data for one system and budget data for the other system. The expenditure/budget data provided by DOD were comparable to the amounts budgeted for these systems for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, these legacy systems will not be eliminated because they provide the capability to process military and civilian permanent duty travel vouchers. Although DTS is expected to provide the capability to process military permanent duty travel vouchers in fiscal year 2010, DOD has not yet decided if civilian permanent duty travel voucher processing will be added to DTS.

DOD cost data indicate that it is about 15 times more expensive to process a travel voucher manually—$36.52 manually versus $2.47 electronically. DOD officials acknowledged that the department continues to lack the data needed to ascertain the complete universe of travel vouchers that should be processed through DTS.

What GAO Recommends

Because GAO has existing recommendations regarding the actions needed to address the weaknesses discussed in this report, GAO reiterates 8 of its 14 prior recommendations. DOD commented that it has taken sufficient action to address 12 of the 14 recommendations, including 6 of the 8 GAO is reiterating, and described actions under way or planned to address the other 2. GAO disagrees. GAO received technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

Click here to read/download the entire report.

7th International Energy Conversion and Engineering Conference (IECEC)

2 – 5 Aug 2009
Colorado Convention Center
Denver, Colorado

The 7th IECEC will explore the future of clean energy systems through a series of panel discussions and technical paper presentations. This year’s hot topics include:

Alternative power systems – such as fuel cell technology and solar system technology

Biofuels, including biodiesel fuels and fuels created from food-waste

Electric power systems which would replace traditional fossil fuel based propulsion systems

Nanotechnlology applications for solar power systems, among many others. There will also be a discussion of future energy policy needs to answer the demand for “green” energy systems.

Featured Sessions:

• Apollo Anniversary Panel (Joint Session with JPC): Gerry Griffin, Glynn Lunney, Frank Van Rensselaer, J.R. Thompson, Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, and Bob Sieck
• Joint IECEC/JPC Session: Electrical Power Extraction from Propulsion Systems, Meeting Increasing Demands: Features experts in propulsion and electrical power generation to discuss the issues and effects of supplying large dynamic electrical loads from air-breathing propulsion systems
• Energy Policies for a Green Future: An overview of the current and upcoming policies and activities in government, industry and academia that will lead to more efficient, less polluting energy systems
• Impact of the USAF/SMC Lithium Ion Battery Standard on Future Spacecraft Batteries: A discussion on the issues and implication of the new lithium ion battery standard
• Joint IECEC/JPC Session: Biofuels for Propulsion and Terrestrial Power Generation: A look into biofuel development as it relates to both propulsion and power generation applications

And Much More!

This event will be co-located with the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

REGISTRATION

Registering in advance can save conference attendees up to $100. A check made payable to AIAA or credit card information must be included with your registration form. Advance registration forms must be received by 06-Jul-2009. Preregistrants may pick up their materials at the advance registration desk.

Click here to learn more about the conference and to register.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit

2 – 5 Aug 2009
Colorado Convention Center
Denver, Colorado

http://www.aiaa.org/events/jpc

Early Bird Registration Deadline: 6 July 2009

AIAA, ASME, SAE, ASEE, and their industry partners, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, proudly invite you to Denver, Colorado, the Mile High City and Gateway to the Rockies, for the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 2–5 August 2009.

The 45th JPC will field a strong lineup of keynote addresses, panel discussions, and technical sessions, examining the future of propulsion systems and their ability to meet the demand for “clean aerospace” technology. Highlights of the conference include a panel on the X-51 “Waverider” scramjet aircraft as it prepares for its maiden flight, a review of recent progress in the field of constant volume combustion, an analysis of the future of gas turbine technology, a critical examination of the history of liquid propulsion flight, and a look at the future of hypersonic propulsion systems. Keynote addresses will explore recent innovations in aeronautical and exo-atmospheric propulsion, the future of the Constellation program, and recent innovations in space launch and space propulsion systems.

The design of our next generation flight and space systems will be dependent more than ever on high performance, increasingly efficient, reliable and affordable propulsion systems. Our ability to incorporate new technologies into aircraft and spacecraft will have far reaching impacts to the evolutionary roles these complex systems play in our everyday lives. Our ability to incorporate new technologies into aircraft and spacecraft will have far reaching impacts to the evolutionary roles these complex systems play in our everyday lives. Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control invite you to Denver and be a part of the exciting future of the aerospace propulsion industry.

Featured Speakers for 2009

Apollo Anniversary Panel:

• Gerry Griffin – Lead flight director in Mission Control for three lunar landings during the Apollo program, and was an integral part of the team that helped the astronauts of Apollo 13 safely return to Earth after their oxygen tank exploded on their journey to the moon.
• Glynn Lunney – An employee of NASA since its foundation in 1958, Lunney was a flight director during the Gemini and Apollo programs, and was on duty during historic events such as the Apollo 11 lunar ascent and the pivotal hours of the Apollo 13 crisis.
• Frank Van Rensselaer – Has held various management positions with NASA during a 20-year period culminating at NASA headquarters where he was a charter member of Senior Executive Service, earning two of the three highest NASA awards.
• J.R. Thompson – Was the fifth Director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center located in Huntsville, Alabama. He served as Director from September 29, 1986 to July 6, 1989. Thompson also served as NASA’s deputy director from July 6, 1989 to November 8, 1991.
• Harrison “Jack” Schmitt – Played a key role in training Apollo crews to be geologic observers when they were in lunar orbit and competent geologic field workers when they were on the lunar surface. After each of the landing missions, he participated in the examination and evaluation of the returned lunar samples and helped the crews with the scientific aspects of their mission reports.
• Bob Sieck – Joined NASA at the Kennedy Space Center in 1964 as a Gemini Spacecraft Systems engineer. He served as an Apollo Spacecraft test team project engineer, Shuttle Orbiter test team project engineer, and in 1976 was named the Engineering Manager for the Shuttle Approach and Landing tests at Dryden Flight Research Facility in California.

Keynote:Innovation in Aeronautical and Exo-Atmospheric Propulsion :

• Dr. Werner Dahm, USAF Chief Scientist

Keynote:Innovation’s Future-Constellation Initiatives

• Brian Duffy, Lockheed Martin, Vice President Altair Program Manager

Award’s Luncheon Keynote: Innovation in Launch and Space System Propulsion

• Gen. Bob Kehler, USAF Space Command

Why Should You Attend?

Identify and highlight how innovative aerospace propulsion technologies get inserted into both new and evolving systems.

Attend special panel sessions with a focus on advanced system applications that can be used to showcase the propulsion systems, components and technologies that enable them.

REGISTRATION

Registering in advance can save conference attendees up to $100. A check made payable to AIAA or credit card information must be included with your registration form. Advance registration forms must be received by 06-Jul-2009. Preregistrants may pick up their materials at the advance registration desk.

Press Release for JPC: http://intranet.aiaa.org/industryresources/PDF/JPCRelease.pdf

Note seen below is applicable for both conferences:

NASA Conference Restrictions Lifted
NASA participation at technical conferences has been cleared per an April 10 NASA Interim Directive 9312.2. You are invited to read the Acting Administrator’s letter to AIAA. To read the letter, click HERE.

(Source: Streetsblog, WATodau.au.com, Smart Growth America)

Image Courtesy: Smart Growth America

Within the $787 billion stimulus bill that became law in February, Congress provided states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) with $26.6 billion in flexible funds for transportation projects. Today marks 120 days from the apportionment of the funds to the states.

Smart Growth America released a report today examining how well states have been spending these billions. As they say on the Smart Growth America blog today, not only did the money arrive in a time of economic recession, but “at a time of embarrassingly large backlogs of road and bridge repairs, inadequate and underfunded public transportation systems, and too-few convenient, affordable transportation options.”

So after 120 days, how have states done in addressing these pressing needs and investing in progress for their communities?

After analyzing project descriptions provided by states and MPOs, Smart Growth America found forward looking states and communities that used the stimulus money as flexibly as possible, repairing roads and bridges and making the kinds of smart, 21st century transportation investments that their communities need to support strong economic growth.

While some states proved excellent at investing wisely and making progress, most states failed to fulfill pressing transportation needs. Nearly one-third of the money, $6.6 billion, went towards building new road capacity. Only 2.8% was spent on public transportation, and 0.9% percent on non-motorized projects.

The Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood, in his daily blog noted that ARRA is working successfully across America. Some folks in the transportation community are not totally happy about how the money had been spent. Streetsblog points out that $6.6B in Stimulus Cash is spent on New Roads, Not Repair. It says:

Distressingly — but unsurprisingly — quite a lot is going to new roads rather than repair of existing ones. Of the $26.6 billion sent to states under a flexible transportation mandate, SGA found that $6.6 billion has gone towards building new highway capacity.

Only $185 million of the flexible stimulus aid has been used on transit and non-motorized transportation, which was given about $8 billionin separate funding as well.

One culprit behind this questionable use of taxpayer money, as SGA reports, is a theme at risk of repeating itself during the upcoming debate over broad transportation reform: the lack of accountability.

Most states and localities reported the projects they selected for stimulus aid only after the fact, allowing a privately run website to monitor the process much faster than the Obama administration.

But inconsistent reporting is just the beginning of the problem, as SGA points out in its report:

Most states failed to educate, engage, and seek input from the public before making decisions. … There is not a clear articulation of what project portfolios should accomplish, no methods identified for evaluating projects against these goals or against one another, and few repercussions for achieving or failing to achieve these goals.

SGA mined the stimulus itself, as well as comments by administration officials, to produce a list of nine goals that can be used to evaluate its transportation spending. But the lack of tangible consequences for not meeting those goals has left states free to spend at will, often focusing more on the report’s No. 1 objective (“create and save jobs”) than Nos. 5 (“improve public transportation”), 7 (“cut greenhouse gas emissions”), and 8 (“not contribute to additional sprawl”).

Interestingly enough, Senior White House adviser David Axelrod says the economic stimulus package has not yet “broken the back of the recession” but set aside calls for a second massive spending bill. Republicans, meanwhile, have called the spending under way a failure.

Some economists and business leaders have called for a second spending bill designed to help guide the economy through a downturn that has left millions without jobs. Axelrod said it’s too early to know if more spending would be needed or if the administration would seek more money from Congress.

“Most of the stimulus money – the economic recovery money – is yet to be spent. Let’s see what impact that has,” Axelrod said. “I’m not going to make any judgment as to whether we need more. We have confidence that the things we’re doing are going to help, but we’ve said repeatedly, it’s going to take time, and it will take time. It took years to get into the mess we’re in. It’s not going to take months to get out of it.”

Click here to download Smart Growth for America’s report:  The States and the Stimulus – Are they using it to create jobs and 21st century transportation?

(Source: AFP via Google, ITDP & Jakarta Post)

New laws requiring disabled pedestrians to wear traffic signs have met with frustration and derision in Indonesia, where in the eyes of the law cars have taken priority over people.

The laws will do nothing to improve road safety or ease the traffic that is choking the life out of the capital city of some 12 million people, and serve only to highlight official incompetence, analysts said.

Within five years, if nothing changes, experts predict Jakarta will reach total gridlock, with every main road and backstreet clogged with barely moving, pollution-spewing cars.

That’s too late for the long-awaited urban rail link known as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), which has only just entered the design stage and won’t be operational until 2016 at the earliest.

“Just like a big flood, Jakarta could be paralysed. The city’s mobility will die,” University of Indonesia researcher Nyoman Teguh Prasidha said.

Instead of requiring level footpaths and ramps, lawmakers voted unanimously this month to demand disabled people wear signs announcing their condition so motorists won’t run them down as they cross the street.

Experts say the new traffic law is sadly typical of a country which for decades has allowed cars and an obsession with car ownership to run rampant over basic imperatives of urban planning.

“It is strange when handicapped people are asked to carry extra burdens and obligations,” Institute of Transportation Studies (Instran) chairman Darmaningtyas said.

A 2004 study by the Japan International Cooperation Agency found that traffic jams cost Jakarta some 8.3 trillion rupiah (822 million dollars) a year in extra fuel consumption, lost productivity and health impact.

Paralyzing traffic jams and severe air pollution are the most frequent answers when people are asked what they know about Jakarta. Motorized vehicle ownerships increase in line with a rise in income per capita.

An Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) study notes that motorized vehicle ownership is growing at 9 percent every year, with more than 1,500 new registrations being filed a day for motorcycles and 500 a day for cars.  The study discusses various options including BRT, incentives for biking, etc to manage the growing congestion problem that is now threatening to cripple the growth of the country’s economy and adversely affect the quality of life of its citizens.

Now, growth of the vehicle population is not the only problem.  The drivers behind the wheel are adding to the chaos on the roads.  An article that recently appeared in the online edition of Jakarta Post, says the following: Driving in Jakarta is nothing short of chaotic, thanks to the huge quantity of people using the roads, the often terrible condition of the roads and the vast variety of vehicles there are. All of this chaos is only made worse by drivers who are reckless and dismissive of other road users.

There are drivers that seem utterly oblivious to there being anybody else on the roads except themselves. Perhaps they are too comfortable in the enclosed air-conditioned capsule that is their vehicle, as they listen to pumped-up stereophonic music or even watch small video screens, to pay any attention or care about anyone else on the roads.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Wired)

Image Courtesy: Apture

Seven billion gallons of gasoline. That’s how much fuel America consumes each year just running the air conditioning in their cars. And don’t think riding with the windows down is the answer; the Mythbusters have long since debunked that solution.

That’s 5.5 percent of the country’s fuel use, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says auto air conditioning contributes more than 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Factor in a 50 million additional tons of CO2 due to refrigerant leakage and you have a environmentally unhealthy result that no American would be proud of.

In the age of gaining independence from oil and seeking responsible consumption, the Department of Energy (DOE) has funded the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to seek solutions to make air conditioning and other similar ancillary systems more efficient. The findings of this research can help automakers hit President Obama’s target for increased average fuel efficiency and put a dent in the carbon footprint of American cars. Research on cabin cooling efficiency is aimed at three areas:

(Source: Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, fivethirtyeight.com & CNN)

Image Courtesy: Climatecrisis.net - An Inconvenient Truth

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a climate change bill that would create a national system to cap greenhouse gas emissions and allow trade of such credits. Only eight Republicans joined Democrats in backing the measure. Prospects for Senate passage this year are uncertain. States that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles.

The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.

There was no derth of drama in the House from the moment the legislators began the day’s proceedings.  The Democrats released a 301-page amendment to the bill at 3:09 a.m. Friday, drawing protest from Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.  “This is the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here. This bill,” Boehner said.

The leaders of the House are customarily granted unlimited speaking time, but when the Boehner’s speech went more than 2½ hours, Democrats objected.  “Is this an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” asked Rep Henry Waxman, D-California, the bill’s lead sponsor.

President Obama hailed the House passage of the bill as “a bold and necessary step.” Mr. Obama had lobbied wavering lawmakers in recent days, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore had made personal appeals to dozens of fence-sitters.

But the legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the worst effects of global warming. And it pitted liberal Democrats from the East and West Coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity and on heavy manufacturing for jobs.

The House legislation reflects a series of concessions necessary to attract the support of Democrats from different regions and with different ideologies. In the months of horse-trading before the vote Friday, the bill’s targets for emissions of heat-trapping gases were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for industries were sweetened.

Several House members expressed concern about the market to be created in carbon allowances, saying it posed the same risks as those in markets in other kinds of derivatives. Regulation of such markets would be divided among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Following is a list of key provisions of the landmark bill (thanks to Washington Post):

• Emissions from a large sector of the U.S. economy, including power plants, factories and auto tailpipes, will be required to be cut 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below those levels by 2050.
• These reductions would be managed by requiring emitters to amass buyable, sellable “credits” equal to their pollution.
• About 85 percent of these credits would be given away for free, many of them with the mandate that electricity distributors sell them and use the proceeds to soften the blow of rising energy prices. Environmentalists had wanted the government to auction them all off.
• Electricity producers would be required to get at least 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, with up to 5 percent more energy saved from new efficiency measures. The two figures must add up to 20 percent.
• Polluters could also balance out some of their emissions by purchasing carbon “offsets,” which are official certificates that greenhouse gas emissions have been avoided, or taken out of the air. In a last-minute amendment, oversight over offsets generated on farms was taken from the Environmental Protection Agency and given to the Agriculture Department.
• A new Clean Energy Deployment Administration funded with $7.5 billion in “green bonds” would provide government money to private companies investing in environment-friendly technologies.

Nearly half the U.S. states have moved toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions and want the federal government to learn from their experience in creating systems to cap emissions and trade pollution credits.  States that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles.

Image Courtesy: www.fivethirtyeight.com

At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets a limit on overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves.

The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy.

Regional considerations tend to loom larger in debates over environmental policy than in other sorts of affairs. Some states consume more energy than others. Some states have more carbon-intensive economies than others.

Some states are more or less likely to be negatively impacted by global warming. And some states are better equipped to take advantage of green energy development.

One of the first of those concerns: household energy usage. The goal here is simple: the Congressional Budget Office recently put out an estimate (.pdf) of the costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The CBO estimated that the average American household would wind up paying a net of $175 in additional energy costs in the year it benchmarked, which was 2020. But how does that cost translate to individual states?

Our renowned statistics whiz at fivethiryeight.com has come up with a brilliant way to translate the CBO’s numbers, based on his interpretation of the CBO’s assumptions, to the level of individual states, making it easy for us common folk to understand what is to be expected when this cap and trade takes effect  ( Transportgooru recommends this as a must read article, especially if you care to know about the the nuts and bolts of “cap-and-trade” system)