Sustainable America via Upworthy

Oh, boy.  What looks like a seemingly insignificant activity – vehicle idling – has a major impact on our economy and on our planet’s well being.  Check out this informative infograph from Sustainable America that shows the gargantuan impacts of vehicle idling in the USA, both  economic and environmental.  If the US alone is wasting so much fuel and adding to the carbon footprint, I can’t even begin to fathom what’s happening if this issue is scaled up at a global level. Adoption of EVs can quickly put an end to this issue and should be considered as part of energy efficiency/conservation programs world wide. Take the pledge to stop idling! 

Image: Sustainable America via Upworthy.com

(Source: Ars Technica)

Each year, the International Energy Agency produces a report in which it considers trends in energy use and makes projections for the future. Usually, these reports simply take recent trends and project them forward, but this year’s is somewhat different: its author uses a mixture of current trends and the projected impact of countries’ pledges for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and subsidies for fossil fuels. This results in some eye-popping figures. Globally, we’re subsidizing fossil fuel use to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, at a rate of over five times the subsidies going to renewable energy. And our inaction on climate goals has tacked $1 trillion onto the cost of reaching them—in 2009 alone.

We’ll start with the subsidies. In 2009, the total subsidies were $312 billion, which may seem high until you hear the 2008 figure: $558 billion, boosted by countries’ responses to the high fossil fuel prices that year. Most of the subsidies went to help cut the costs of using oil and natural gas products; another substantial chunk went to electricity use.

The IEA factsheet also forecasts a steep rises in the primary energy demand (increases by 36% between 2008 and 2035, or 1.2% per year on average) oil prices. The cost of getting on track to meet the climate goal for 2030 has risen by about $1 trillioncompared with the estimated cost in last year’s Outlook. This is because much stronger efforts,costing considerably more, will be needed after 2020. In the 450 Scenario in this year’s Outlook, theadditional spending on low‑carbon energy technologies (business investment and consumerspending) amounts to nearly $18 trillion (in year- 2009 dollars) more than in the Current PoliciesScenario, in which no new policies are assumed, in the period 2010‑2035. It is around $13.5 trillionmore than in the New Policies Scenario.

Click here to read the entire Ars Technica argument and the IEA’s World Energy Outlook website.

Note: Recommendations to remove the fuel subsidies will have huge implications for people living in developing and under-developed countries of the world.  The consequences has life-altering impacts for many people living below the poverty line, even in booming economies like China and India.  Many in these parts of the world earn so little that it won’t even make their ends meet and how would they pay for burning their kerosene stoves or ride their little 50cc mopeds to work.  Why do I find this huge divide between the educated class (i.e., Armani wearing executives sitting in board rooms of IEA and sipping lattes in Davos chatting over prices of fuel in some distant future) and the poor working class (the one who toil in hard work on the factory floors and make a meager living that pays for one meal a day)?  Governments in  these developing economic countries have a huge problem dealing with the pressures of providing the basic necessities and if the subsidies were lifted, many would find it hard to survive.  Unless the global community comes up with a quick, clean energy solution(s) that is affordable and accessible to all, I think many nations will not buy into these meaningless recommendations. Already many countries are struggling to find money to sustain their existing support programs for the poor and where would they go to find more money for wide-spread deployment of  Clean & sustainable energy solutions such as Solar, electric, etc.

Related articles

• IEA: last year’s inaction on climate goals cost us $1 trillion (arstechnica.com)
• World should eradicate fossil fuel subsidies-IEA (reuters.com)
• World should eradicate fossil fuel subsidies: IEA (reuters.com)
• China, Government Policy to Drive Energy Prices (247wallst.com)
• Call to stop fossil fuel subsidy (bbc.co.uk)
• Axe fossil fuel subsidies to stop climate change (newscientist.com)
• put an end to $312 billion subsidies to fossil fuels – IEA (politics.ie)
• Fat Subsidies for Fossil Fuels (solarfeeds.com)
• Oil demand to rise for 25 years despite green push (grist.org)
• Drumbeat: November 9, 2010 (theoildrum.com)
• More needs to be done to avoid oil spike, IEA says (sfgate.com)
• IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look (theoildrum.com)
• “IEA raises oil price outlook on supply uncertainty” and related posts (kippreport.com)
• More needs to be done to avoid oil spike, IEA says (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Forecaster Sees Jump in Energy Demand by 2035 (nytimes.com)
• IEA sees oil peak looming (financialpost.com)
• China’s thirst to keep oil prices booming: IEA (theglobeandmail.com)
• Text:EIA November Outlk: Oil Prices To Rise to $87 By Q4′11 -1 (forexlive.com)
• G20 Leaders Not Removing Fossil Fuel Subsidies As Pledged. (thegoodhuman.com)
• Two-faced world spends billions on climate help, fossil fuel (go.theregister.com)

(Source: Economic Policy Institute)

Image Courtesy: Economic Policy Institute

The program has already prompted thousands of Americans to upgrade older, less fuel efficient cars and is generating much-needed sales for troubled automobile manufacturers and related industries while decreasing gasoline consumption and improving environmental outcomes. But has there been an attempt to quantify these  impacts on fuel efficiency and environment? Yes.  The Economic Policy Insititute analyzes the fuel efficiency improvements & emissions reductions and made it easy for us to understand.  Here is a quick peek at the study & the awesome graphic that explains the cost savings in fueling a clunker vs. a new car.  The study methodology involves the following elements:

• Study authors assumed that the average credit is $4,000 and that all of the $1 billion is spent on credits, thus producing 250,000 trade-ins.
• The average miles driven per year — 14,450 — is the per vehicle estimate from the US Department of Transportation for 2006, the latest available data.
• Used forecasted annual gas price of $2.36/gallon from the Department of Energy.
• Derive CO2 emissions from the EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who assume that 1 gallon of automobile gasoline is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2.
• 58% of all crude oil is from foreign sources and that 44% of all crude oil goes to gasoline production (both estimates from the Department of Energy for 2008).

Based on these assumptions, the study team has determined that the fuel economy improvements will save an estimated $821 per traded vehicle annually (see chart above).  How? Reduced gas consumption means less dependence on foreign oil, and more money in the pockets of consumers that could be used for domestic consumption. According to the Department of Transportation, the average fuel efficiency of old cars traded in via the program is 15.8 miles per gallon, while new cars had an average MPG of 25.4.

On average, total gas consumption will drop by 87 million gallons per year, and American consumers will use 22.2 million fewer barrels of foreign crude oil. The environmental impact of reduced gas consumption is considerable as well. We estimate that the program will result in about 850,000 fewer tons of CO2 emissions per year (3.4 tons per vehicle annually). This reduction equals more than two-thirds of the annual CO2 emissions linked to household electricity, heating, and waste.

Click here to read the entire article. (Hat tip @NPR)

(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)

(Source: Autbloggreen) 

The Autoblogger says “2008 saw the biggest drop ever in CO₂ emissions from new vehicles sold in the UK, with a year over year reduction of 4.2 percent. Wtih a fleetwide average of just 158 g/km, cars amount to just 11.5 percent of total UK carbon dioxide emissions. The combination of rapid escalation in fuel prices in 2008 and congestion charges in cities like London undoubtedly pushed many car buyers to some of the low emissions specials like the VW Polo BlueMotion, Smart ForTwo CDi and Ford Fiesta ecoNetic.”

(Source: Office of Planning, Environment and Realty Federal Highway Administration)

Recent Events

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer Announces Principles for Global Warming Legislation. On February 3, S

en. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced her intent to move quickly on global warming legislation and issued principles that she would like to see included. These include setting short and long term emissions targets that are certain and enforceable, using a carbon market to fund various efforts to reduce GHG emissions, and ensuring a level global playing field so that countries contribute their fair share to GHG emissions reductions. For more information including a link to Sen. Boxer’s Principles, see the Committee’s press release.

House Subcommittee Receives Testimony on Surface Transportation Energy Reduction.On January 27, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit heard from nationally recognized transportation experts and a panel of industry representatives about ways to reduce energy consumption and promote sustainability in the surface transportation sector.  Video of the proceedings and written testimonies (scroll down) are available on the Subcommittee website.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Holds Meeting on Maritime Transport and the Climate Change Challenge. On February 17, FHWA’s Mike Savonis presented (via videoconference) results from USDOT’s Gulf Coast Study Phase I to an international audience in Geneva.  Additional information and presentations from the three-day event are available on the meeting website.

U.C. Davis Provides Congressional Briefing on Low-Carbon Transportation Policies & Strategies. On January 12, 2009, the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Institute of Transportation Studies provided a briefing to Congressional staffers on the future of low-carbon transportation. More information about UC Davis climate change activities is available on the UC Davis ITS website.

House Subcommittee Conducts Hearing on Monitoring GHG Emissions.  On February 24, the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment conducted a hearing on how to monitor, report and verify greenhouse gas emissions.  The purpose of the hearing was to determine the federal role in the funding of research and development of monitoring technologies as well as models to support reliable baseline data for GHG emissions.  The subcommittee heard testimony from businesses, government agencies, and localities on procedures and methods that can be used to monitor, report, and verify greenhouse gas emissions.  More information can be found on the Committee’s website at: http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2359

State News

Oregon Governor Introduces VMT Fee Legislation. Following a study on charging a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee in place of a state gas tax, the Governor of Oregon introduced legislation that could move the state closer to adopting a per mile road user fee in place of the 24-cent per gallon gas tax. Governor Kulongoski’s Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 requires the Oregon DOT to develop VMT fee collection technology that could be used to replace the gas tax.  The Act also directs Oregon DOT to further study gas tax alternatives.

Click here to read the entire newsletter.

(Source: Autobloggreen)

Motorsports of all kinds are feeling the pressure to reduce their environmental footprint, and the British Touring Car Championship is no different. In an effort to demonstrate their commitment to green racing (a contradiction in terms?), the BTCC has started testing the race cars of its various contenders at Land Rover’s lab in Solihull to be sure that their carbon emissions are in line with the road cars on which they are based.

(Source: Austrian Times)

New research has shown that Austrian drivers cover 194 million kilometres in their cars every day.

The Austrian Traffic Club (VCÖ) reported the figures today (Weds). It added that Austria’s 4.28 million registered cars carried an average of 1.3 occupants each day and emitted 28,000 tonnes of CO2, consuming 11.2 million litres of fuel daily.

VCÖ official Martin Blum reminded the public about the consequences of taking excessively-short car trips.

One in every 10 car trips, he said, covered a distance of less than one kilometre. “Fuel consumption is extremely high over the first kilometre. Consumption over the first kilometre averages the same as consumption of 20-to-25 litres of fuel over 100 kilometres. A breakfast roll obtained by a car trip to a bakery is very expensive,” he added.

Austrian churches are trying to lower the cost of travel by car by encouraging Austrians to engage in less of it during Lent, which begins today.

Austria’s Roman Catholic and Evangelical Churches are calling on Austrians to drive less during Lent, which lasts from 25 February to 11 April this year.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source:  Google.org)

RechargeIT is a Google.org initiative that aims to reduce CO2 emissions, cut oil use, and stabilize the electrical grid by accelerating the adoption of plug-in electric vehicles. We have a demonstration fleet of plug-ins at our headquarters in Mountain View, and we’re collecting and posting data on plug-in performance, investing in innovative technologies, and advocating for the passage of important legislation. Our vision is that one day thousands of cars will be plugging into a greener grid.

We’ve had our RechargeIT plug-ins on the road for about a year now, collecting data when driven by Google employees in our free car-share program. But we wanted to see how they would perform in a controlled test. The results of our seven-week driving experiment are in – and the plug-ins did great, getting as much as 93 MPG average across all trips, and 115 MPG for city trips! See the full results to explore detailed data from the experiment. (And check back often as we’ll be posting even more comprehensive data from our test over the next few weeks.)

RechargeIT Driving Experiment

Electricity usage for plug-in vehicles: 
Ford Escape Plug-In 133.2 Wh/mi, Toyota Prius Plug-in 139.6 Wh/mi

Click here to explore this on-going Google Initiative.