(Source: NPR)

Pedal to the metal, Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation Thursday night with an additional $2 billion for “cash for clunkers,” the economy-boosting rebate program that caught the fancy of car buyers and instantly increased sales for an auto industry long mired in recession.

Images via Apture

The Senate approved the money on a 60-37 vote after administration officials said an initial $1 billion had run out in only 10 days. The House voted last week to keep alive the program, which gives consumers up to $4,500 in federal subsidies if they trade in their cars for new, more energy-efficient models.

Without action, lawmakers risked a wave of voter discontent as they left the Capitol for a monthlong vacation.

Supporters of the program hailed its effect on the auto industry — which had its best month in nearly a year in July — as well as its claimed environmental benefits.

“The reality is this is a program that has been working. Consumers believe it’s working. Small-business people believe it’s working. People who make steel and aluminum and advertisers … and everyone who’s involved in the larger economic impact of the auto industry believe it is working,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

The legislation had its share of critics, though, most of them Republicans.

“What we’re doing is creating debt. … The bill to pay for those cars is going to come due on our children and grandchildren,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH).

Officials said the program’s initial $1 billion probably already has been spent, but a paperwork backlog prevented an accurate accounting. The additional $2 billion is enough to help consumers purchase a half-million more new cars, they added.

There was no suspense about the outcome in the Senate, where supporters of the legislation focused their energies on defeating all attempts at amending the measure. Passage of any changes would effectively scuttle “cash for clunkers,” they said, since the House has already begun a summer vacation and is not in session to vote on revisions.

An attempt by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to limit the program to lower and middle-income consumers was jettisoned on a vote of 65-32. Gregg’s call for Congress to offset the $2 billion with spending cuts elsewhere also failed, 51-46.

The Senate’s debate capped an unusually swift response by lawmakers, who were informed scarcely a week ago that the program was quickly running short of money.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

This post is sponsored by LemonFree.com

Buoyed by the US government’s CARS (“Cash for Clunkers”) program, US auto sales slowed their decline in the US in July, dropping on 12.1% to 997,824 units, accordingto summary figures from AutoData. Passenger car sales dropped 10.6% to 554, 527 units, while light truck sales dropped 14.1% to 443, 297 units. All comparisons are by volume. As a result, the SAAR for July surged to 11.24 million units; US SAAR had been below 10 million since January.

Hybrids had an especially good month, with reported sales jumping 31.8% year-on-year to 35,429 units, representing a 3.55% new vehicle sales market share for the month—the highest monthly share yet. Hybrid gains were largely due to an increase in Prius sales (up 29.7% to 19,173 units) and Ford hybrids (up 323% to 5,353 units).

Image Courtesy: Green Car Congress - Hybrid sales rise, thanks to Cash for Clunkers

According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, CARS sales reflected demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles:

• Ford reported a 9 mpg increase from trade-in vehicle to new vehicle purchase;
• GM reported a 54% increase in small car sales since the CARS program was launched;
• 57% of Mazdas sold so far under the program were fuel-efficient Mazda 3’s;
• 78% of Toyota’s CARS sales volume consists of Corolla, Prius, Camry, RAV 4 and Tacoma, which average a combined 30 mpg;
• Volkswagen reports more than 60% of its CARS sales are clean diesel Jetta TDIs which get an EPA combined 34 mpg.

Image Courtesy: Green Car Congress - Total Reported Monhtly Sales of Hybrid Vehicles in US

Here is a quick snapshot of sales volume by manufacturer (in the hybrid category):

• GM delivered a total of 1,487 hybrid vehicles were delivered in the month, up 36.3% year-on-year.
• Ford’s fuel-efficient vehicles pace July sales results. Ford had an exceptionally strong month with hybrid sales, up 323% year-on-year to 5,353 units.
• Toyota Motor Sales (TMS) posted July sales of 24,295 hybrid vehicles, up 19.3% from the same period last year.
• Total sales of the fuel-efficient Honda Civic increased 3.1% to 30,037. Sales of the Civic Hybrid, however, plunged 71.8% to 969 units year-on-year. The new Honda Insight hybrid posted 2,295 units.
• Nissan sold 1,030 units of the Altima hybrid, up 44.1% year-on year.

Our friends at Jalopnik yesterday published a revised list of ten most purchased vehicles under the Cash for Clunkers program:

1. Ford Focus

2. Toyota Corolla

3. Honda Civic

4. Toyota Prius

5. Toyota Camry

6. Ford Escape FWD

7. Hyundai Elantra

8. Dodge Caliber

9. Honda Fit

10. Chevrolet Cobalt

Click here to read the entire report.

(Source: AP Via Yahoo & Time)

“Cash for clunkers” could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren’t impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

“As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do,” said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. “The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small.”

Officials expect a quarter-million gas guzzlers will be junked under the original $1 billion set aside by Congress — money that is now all but exhausted.

Calculations by The Associated Press, using Department of Transportation figures, show that replacing those fuel hogs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by just under 700,000 tons a year. While that may sound impressive, it’s nothing compared to what the U.S. spewed last year: nearly 6.4 billion tons (and that was down from previous years).

That means on average, every hour, America emits 728,000 tons of carbon dioxide. The total savings per year from cash for clunkers translates to about 57 minutes of America’s output of the chief greenhouse gas.

Likewise, America will be using nearly 72 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year because of the program, based on the first quarter-million vehicles replaced. U.S. drivers go through that amount of gas every 4 1/2 hours, according to the Department of Energy.

Time Magazine reports that initial data released by Department of Transportation, however, shows that so far cash for clunkers has been a green success. The clunkers averaged 15.8 m.p.g., compared with 25.4 m.p.g. for the new vehicles purchased, for an average fuel-economy increase of 61%. On the whole, American drivers are trading in inefficient trucks and SUVs for much more efficient passenger cars. Car manufacturers like Nissan are already retooling some models to improve their fuel economy so they can qualify for the credits. The early numbers were enough to convince California Senator Dianne Feinstein to go from criticizing cash for clunkers as too lax to supporting additional funding for the bill in the Senate. “This program has done much better than we ever thought it would for the environment,” she told reporters on Aug. 4.

It’s called the efficiency paradox: as we get more efficient at using energy — through less wasteful cars and appliances — the overall cost of energy goes down, but we respond by using more of it. In the case of cars, that means driving more. Ultimately our gas bill stays the same, but we spend more time on the road and pump the same amount of greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. The earth isn’t any better off.

To address the emissions problem directly, we need to look at fuel, not Fords: institute carbon taxes that raise the price of gas. We already know that higher gas prices discourage driving and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions — total vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. declined 3.6% in 2008 compared with the previous year, thanks largely to the sky-high price of gas for much of 2008. (The recession didn’t help, but sharp declines in driving began well before the bottom dropped out of the economy.) As gas prices have fallen in 2009, however, driving has begun to tick back up.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress & NGVA Europe)

Image via Apture

The monthly sales rate of natural gas vehicles in Sweden has increased from about 150 to more than 700 units,according to NGVA Europe. The results are largely driven by the new Volkswagen TSI Passat EcoFuel (earlier post) (60% of sales) and the Mercedes B 170 NGT (earlier post) (24% of sales).

Most of the company cars are medium sized sedans or wagons. Cars like the new Volkswagen Passat TSI EcoFuel, and the Mercedes B 170 NGT (see picture on the right while refuelling at a NG/biomethane filling station of Fordonsgas), belong in this category, and explain the strong growth this year of the Swedish NGV sales. More than 50 % of all new cars sold in the Swedish market are company cars supplied to employees and used both for company and private purposes.

The employee pays income tax based on the assessed value of the car and the value of any fuel paid for by the company. For hybrids and for NGVs the value of the car is reduced by 40 % and for flex fuel cars by 20 %, to stimulate the use of environmentally superior technologies. The 40 % reduction is limited to maximum 16.000 SEK annually which, with a marginal tax rate of 50 %, means a net tax saving of 8.000 SEK (some 800 EUR) annually. The lower fuelling costs also mean a corresponding reduction of tax on the value of fuel paid for by the company. A reduction of the annual fuel costs by say 600 EUR thus normally means a 300 EUR tax saving.

Sweden at the end of 2008 had just under 17.000 NGVs and the Swedish NGV sales in June ran at an annual rate of 8.700 vehicles. Sales of new NGVs are now accelerating and may soon reach about 800 units monthly, corresponding with an annual sales rate of close to 10.000 vehicles. The graph shown below clearly illustrates the importance of the now available new models in the company cars segment (also well suited for the Swedish taxi cab segment).

In June 2.9 % of all new passenger cars sold in Sweden were NGVs!

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Bloomberg)

The future of the U.S. “cash for clunkers” program depends on the Senate backing a $2 billion infusion this week, with at least one Republican saying he was going to try to block the effort.

“We’ve got to slow this thing down,” Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The House voted 316-109 on July 31 for an emergency measure adding $2 billion to the program aimed at reviving U.S. auto sales, after a burst of demand exhausted most of the initial $1 billion in less than a week.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a C-SPAN interview Sunday he expects the current $1 billion in funding to be gone by the end of the weekend. The administration will continue the program until the Senate acts, and dealers will be reimbursed for deals in the pipeline, he said. The government will make a “good-faith effort” for transactions beginning tomorrow, he said.

DeMint said he opposes the program because “we’re helping auto dealers while there are thousands of other small businesses that aren’t getting help.”

Named the Car Allowance Rebate System, the program provides credits of as much as $4,500 for the purchase of a new car when turning in an older vehicle to be scrapped. Lawmakers had expected the first $1 billion to generate about 250,000 vehicle sales and last until about Nov. 1.

(Source: Wired)

Image via Apture

The electrification of the automobile has been called the auto industry’s “moon shot,” an analogy that works because of both the technology involved and the cost to develop it. Automakers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort with no promise that it will lead to affordable battery-powered vehicles anytime soon — or any guarantee people will buy them once they’re available.

All of the major automakers are racing to put EVs in showrooms as early as next year, and they’re spending money like sailors on shore leave to do it. General Motors has spent about $1 billion developing the Chevrolet Volt. Chrysler wants to invest $448 million in its electric vehicle program to build cars like the Circuit, pictured above at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Elon Musk’s personal investment in Tesla Motors tops $75 million.

The Apollo program cost more than $100 billion in today’s dollars, and as Ron Cogan, founder and editor of Green Car Journal and greencar.com notes, there was no imperative to produce a reasonably priced consumer product. Not so with electric vehicles – the whole point is to sell cars. The Obama Administration is betting heavily on the technology, having recently approved almost $8 billion to help automakers retoolfactories to produce EVs and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Another $16 billion will be doled out next year.

“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” Cogan says. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”

Early adopters and hardcore EV advocates will gladly pay that much, but will the rest of us pay $15,000 to $25,000 more for a car that runs on electricity? Cogan doesn’t think so and says EVs should be considered mid- to long-term solutions until automakers — and the battery makers they rely upon — can bring costs down to a level competitive with vehicles propelled by internal combustion.

Until then, he says, more efficient gasoline cars, clean diesel vehicles and hybrids will comprise the majority of cars sold even as EVs become an increasingly common sight in showrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Examiner & Autobloggreen)

In the name of “clean energy,” Washington is subsidizing a switch from gasoline-powered cars to cars powered mostly by coal. In pursuit of “energy independence,” the feds may foster addiction to a fuel concentrated in a socialist-run South American country.

Image Courtesy: Apture - Hybrid electric vehicles at Argonne

Lobbying by automakers, chemical companies and coal-dependent power producers has yielded a slew of subsidies and mandates for electric cars. However promising a gasoline-free automobile may sound, anyone who followed the government’s mad rush to ethanol fuel in recent years has to worry about the clean promise of the electric car yielding dirty results.

Ethanol — an alcohol fuel made from corn or other plants — has been pushed relentlessly on the American people by a Congress under the influence of a powerful ethanol lobby. Touted as a clean fuel, the government-created ethanol boom has contributed to water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and even air pollution.

Lithium could be the new ethanol, thanks to the government push for electric cars. Lithium is an element found in nature, and lithium-ion batteries are at the heart of the next generation of electric cars. Compared with lead acid (the standard car battery) and nickel metal hydride (the batteries in today’s hybrids), lithium-ion batteries are less toxic, more powerful and longer lasting.

But what would happen if electric cars and these batteries gain wide use?

Before we even get to the batteries, recall that although all-electric, plug-in cars emit nothing, somebody needs to burn something for the car to move. Here, the burning happens at the power plant instead of under your hood.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

If the cleaner and cheaper fuel of a plug-in causes someone to drive even a bit more, it’s a break-even on CO2. GAO co-author Mark Gaffigan raised the question to CNSNews.com; “If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”

And of course, there’s the lithium lobby. FMC Corp. is the largest lithium producer in the United States. The company employs a dozen lobbying firms and operates its own political action committee. FMC has leaned on Congress and the Energy Department for electric car subsidies.

If the electric car lobby succeeds, brace for another harsh lesson in unintended consequences.

Click here to read the entire Examiner article. Our friends at Autobloggreen were kind enough to point Tim Carney, the author of this Examiner article, the following: While Carney is right that the GAO did warn against all of the coal that could be used to power the EVs of the future, he forgot to mention the GAO’s finding that “Research we reviewed indicated that plug-ins could shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers even if there was no change in the fuel used to generate electricity.”

TransportGooru Musings: Though I agree with some aspects of the author’s argument, I disagree with the notion that  Electric Vehicle investment boom is akin to that of the Ethanol-boom of the years past.   There are many differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the past.  Apart from ridiculing the Government’s strategy, the author, Tim Carney, is not offering any credible solutions and simply terrorizes the readers with an insane argument — Your tax dollars are getting wasted and the lithium lobbies are winning.

Let us see, Mr. Carney! We have two clear choices  — either we continue to tread the same path, guzzling billions of gallons of oil a day (and polluting the environment with gay abandon), all the while facilitating the transfer of your dollars to some petro-dictatorship in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) or South America (Venezuela).  Or try and invest in something like Electric Vehicles which can help us and our children breathe easy in the years to come.   The latter option may not be very appealing to many folks like you who are grounded in a myopic view of the world.

Though majority of the electric power produced in the US comes from coal,  we can to a large degree control the emissions from these coal plants with current technology.  It may require some more arm twisting on the Government’s part to make these coal-fired electric plants to adhere to the stringent emissions standards but this is a lot more easy to manage.  Also, with more government investment in other forms of generating electricity and a great deal of consumer interest in purchasing clear power, we have  golden an opportunity for investing in other forms of electricity production (Nuclear,  Wind, solar. etc – FYI, Government data indicate there have been 17 licence applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors since mid 2007, following several regulatory initiatives preparing the way for new orders and the Government envisions producing significant share of the power from Nuclear by 2020).

In this option, the Fed & State Governments can regulate and control these domestic sources of power generation and to a large degree keep the investments within the American borders.  If you are advocating to continue the same path as we have done in the past decades, Petro-dictators on the other parts of the globe  (Saudi, Venezuela, Russia, etc) are going to grow richer and they do not listen to what you or your government wants.  They do what they want and run a cartel (OPEC) that is very unrestrained and at times acts like a bunch of thugs.  In this option, your price at the pump is not dictated by your Government but some hukka-smoking, arms-dealing perto-aggresor, who is trying to make the best of the situation and extract as much as he can from your wallet.

The Ethanol buzz dissipated quickly because the Detroit lobby was too damn powerful and them automakers were not listening well to what the customers wanted.   When the economy tanked (and the markets wreacked havock on their stock values) and the customers started showing love for foreign manufactured cars like Prius & Insight,  Detroit had a sudden realization that they need to change their strategy and started moving away from making those huge SUVs and Trucks. Now they are talking about newer cars that are small, functional, economic and environmentally viable products.

It is hard to disagree that there was a flood of investment in the Ethanol technology, but the underlying concept remained the same (burning fuel using the conventional combustion engine) and there was nothing ground-shaking about the way it was promoted.  It is just that we were simply trying to change the amount of emissions coming out of our tailpipes.  But now with Electric-vehicles, we are changing the game completely.

Though it may take a few more years to develop the “Perfect” technology, full electrification of vehicles will eliminate the very concept of a tailpipe in a vehicle.  Tesla and numerous other manufacturers are trying to do this and I consider this to be a step in the right direction.  One thing we have to bear in mind is that during the Ethanol era, the U.S. was the major proponent (because we have way to much areable land and corn growing farmers around) and the rest of the world was just playing along with mild interest because of various reason.  But this time around the  scenario looks very different.  Worldwide there is a coordinated push for heavy investments in alternative energy technologies, and almost every industrialized nation jumped into this EV bandwagon pushing research funds towards development of green cars when the oil prices sky rocketed.  No one is interested in paying $140+ dollars/barrel for oil.

Above all, we are at a time when the Government needs to invest its tax-payer dollars back in the communities in a fruitful way. The addiction to oil has gotten way bad and the sky-high oil prices of 2008 were a good indicator that we can’t afford to continue treading in the same path as we did in the decade past. If the Government has to hold back from investing in clean energy technologies, it might invest in other areas that may look very appealing in the short run but potentially leaving a huge developmental hole in the transportation sector.  This is the RIGHT TIME for investing in Electric Vehicles.  Now the Government has a stake in two of the three Detroit Automakers, which offers the flexibility to steer the development of new technologies and  newer vehicle platforms running on clean fuels such as electric and hydrogen power.

Going by your argument that by switching enmass to Electric-vehicles, we are going to create a demand for Lithium, simply shifting our oil dependence to socialist-Bolivia’s Lithium reserves, so be it.  You want to know why? Any day, I’ll take the Democratically-elected Bolivian Government (headed by a Evo Morales)  over the petro-crazy OPEC members.  If it helps resuscitate a nation that is living in depths of poverty, why not do that.  We in the Western world helped the Saudi’s & other mid-east monarchs become rich and modern from their goat-sheperding Bedouin past with the invention of modern Automobiles.  If we can do the same to Bolivia with the introduction of a new technology (Lithium-ion batteries for running cars), why do you get so jittery about that.

The growing threat of environmental degradation and the fallout from the rising green house gas emissions fore-casted by our eminent scientists are too damn threatening to our world and hard to ignore. Be happy thinking that your Government is doing something to improve the status-quo (which is guzzling billions of gallons of oil) instead of  sitting around waiting for a miracle.   For all that matters Electric Vehicles may be just an evolution in the quest for a better form of transportation.  Who knows!  But by investing in these technologies, we may at least have a chance to live a better life in the future. If our Government is not doing any of the above, we may never have a future after all.  So, let’s stop being an obstacle along the way for everything the Government does just because it is run by people who have a diabolically different views and principles.

(Source:  Green Car Congress & Synovate)

Market research firm Synovate released new study findings showing that nearly six in ten people would choose to buy a green car over a dream car, even if money was no object. In March 2009, Synovate surveyed more than 13,500 people across 18 markets (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom and the United States of America) about “green” versus “dream” cars, vehicle ownership, intent to buy in the next year and attitudes towards cars, traffic, public transport and their need-for-speed.

The top answer across all 18 markets, if money was no object, was to buy a green car, with 37% of respondents saying this would be their preference. Thirty percent said they would buy their dream car and a further 22% claimed that &ldqou;my dream car is a green car”, meaning that 59%—or very nearly six in ten—showed the desire to go green.

This In:fact survey on cars was conducted in March 2009 across 18 markets - Australia (AU), Brazil (BR), Canada (CA), China (CN), Egypt (EGY), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), India (IN), Japan (JP), Korea (KR), Malaysia (MY), South Africa (ZA), Thailand (TH), Turkey (TR), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). It covered over 13,200 urban respondents

• The nation most likely to simply elect green car was Germany, with 58% choosing the environment over their dream cars.
• The 30% of people globally who would still choose their dream car, green-be-damned, comprised of 35% men and 27% women.
• The single biggest result for dream car came from South Africa where over half of all respondents (53%) would go for their fantasy vehicle over a green one.
• In the United States (US), 35% would buy a dream car, 23% chose green and 19% say their dream car is a green car. More American women than men say that their dream car is a green car (20% women versus 17% men).
• Overall, 15% of respondents across all 18 markets surveyed, including 9% in the US, say they will buy a new car in the next 12 months. The new car purchase intenders were topped by India at 38% and Egypt at 24%.
• 6% of survey respondents across the 18 markets say they will buy a used car in the next year, including 7% of Americans. 53% would be happy to pay more for a used car if it came with a manufacturer certification and warranty.
• South Africa (18%) as well as the US, Malaysia and Thailand (all 15%) were tops among the households globally in which more than two cars can be found.
• 14% of respondents across the 18 markets say they will use public transport more often in the coming year. The highest level of agreement was in China at 39%. The lowest level of agreement was in the US at 2%.
• 9% of people globally, including 5% of Americans, said they would be riding bikes or walking more often.

Click here to read the entire study.

(Source: Autobloggreen, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Guardian, UK)

• Financial crisis, pricey oil halve rise in CO2 emissions
• Developing nations now emit more than industrialised world

Image Courtesy: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

High oil prices and the impact of a global recession halved yearly rises in global greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in 2008, the first evidence of an impact from the financial crisis, a study said on Thursday.

Also for the first time, the share of global carbon emissions from developing countries was higher than from industrialised nations, at 50.3 percent. China recently overtook the United States as the world’s top carbon emitter.

The good news comes to us via a study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) which points out that the use of biofuels and an increase in the use of renewables has helped achieve the encouraging result. It’s also worth noting that America actually reduced emissions by 3 percent and that the continuing increases are mostly occurring in developing countries. One final positive worth underlining is that 2008 was the first year investment in renewables was greater than investments in fossil-fuelled technologies.

Thursday’s data showed that global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and from cement production reached 31.6 billion tonnes in 2008, up 40 percent from 1990 levels and a doubling since 1970. Scientists say that annual increases in global greenhouse gas emissions must level off and start to fall by 2015-2020 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Emissions increased by 1.7 percent in 2008 compared with 3.3 percent in 2007. Since 2002, the average annual increase was almost 4 percent, the study said.

Click here to read the results of the entire PBL study. Below is an interesting exceprt from the report.

Trends in USA, European Union, China, Russia and India

In total, CO2 emissions of the USA and the European Union decreased by about 3% and 1.5% in 2008, Although China’s emissions showed an increase of 6%, this is the lowest increase since 2001. Cement production in China showed a similar pattern, with a 2.5% increase in 2008, a drop from 9.5% in 2007. The declining increase of China’s emissions fits in the trend since 2004, when its emissions increased by 17%. Smaller contributions to increasing global emissions were made by India and Russia, which emissions increased by 7% and 2%, respectively.

Since 1990, CO2 emissions per person of China have increased from 2 to 5.5 tonne of CO2 per capita and decreased from 9 to 8.5 for the EU-15 and from 19.5 to 18.5 for the USA. These changes reflect the large economic development of China, structural changes in national and global economies and the impact of climate and energy policies.

It can be observed that due to its fast economic development, per capita emissions of China quickly approaches levels that are common within the industrialised countries of the Annex I group under the Kyoto Protocol. Among the largest countries, other countries that show fast increasing per capita emissions are South Korea, Iran and Australia. On the other hand per capita emissions of the EU-15 and the USA are gradually decreasing over time. Those of Russia and Ukraine have decreased fast since 1990, although the emissions in 1990 and therefore the trend are rather uncertain due to the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

(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)