(Source: Marlerhaley via  Killer Infographics & Autoblog Green)

Image Courtesy: Marler Haley, UK

On a related note, it might be worth noting that there is a already a lot of controversy surrounding the official numbers posted by the automakers versus the results from real life driving conditions in Europe.  Here is a peek at the ongoing debate:

Jos Dings, director of Brussels-based Transport & Environment, told Automotive News (sub. req.) that official CO2 emissions results posted by automakers are “less and less a reflection of what we are seeing on the road.” Dings says that the amount of CO2 emitted under controlled test conditions can be up to 50 percent lower than in real-world driving, telling AN that, “We don’t want cuts on paper. We want them in reality.”

Image Courtesy: via Autoblog — CO2 emissions chart

Click here to read more about this ongoing issue.

(Source: New York Times)

The Obama administration issued proposed rules on Tuesday that impose the first nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and that require American cars and light truck fleet to meet a fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016.

The government projects that the regulations will raise car and truck prices by an average of $1,100, but that drivers will save $3,000 over the life of the vehicle in lower fuel bills. Officials also said the new program, which is to take effect in 2012, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly a billion tons and cut oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels from 2012 to 2016.

The 1,227-page regulation will go through a 60-day public comment period before it is completed early next year.

(Source: AFP via Yahoo & Science Daily)

Image Courtesy: IOP - Energy consumption and GHG emissions per PKT (The vehicle operation components are shown with gray patterns. Other vehicle components are shown in shades of blue. Infrastructure components are shown in shades of red and orange. The fuel production component is shown in green. All components appear in the order they are shown in the legend.)

Do you worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint? Are you the one who frets about  tailpipe emissions, greenhouse gases and climate change?

If yes,  you must be the one who prefers to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study published in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain’s Institute of Physics.  Often unknown to the public, there are an array of hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple “tailpipe” tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip. Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at theUniversity of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.  By comparison, San Francisco‘s local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston’s. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the “tailpipe” quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure — railways, airport terminals, roads and so on — nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

The researchers also touch on the effect of low passenger occupancy and show that we are naïve to automatically assume one form of transport is more environmentally friendly than another. They conclude from their calculations that a half-full Boston light railway is only as environmentally friendly, per kilometre traveled, as a midsize aircraft at 38 per cent occupancy.  From cataloguing the varied environmental costs the researchers come to some surprising conclusions. A comparison between light railways in both Boston and San Franciso show that despite Boston boasting a light railway with low operational energy use, their LRT is a far larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter because 82 per cent of the energy generated in Boston is fossil-fuel based, compared to only 49 per cent in San Francisco.

Total life-cycle energy inputs and GHG emissions contribute an additional 155 per cent for rail, 63 per cent for cars and buses, and 32 per cent for air systems over vehicle exhaust pipe operation.

Journal reference:

• Mikhail V Chester and Arpad Horvath. Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 2009; 4 (024008) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008

(Source:  Autobloggreen)

Before you think we’ve gone crazy, let’s make clear that this is a post about a serious report published in Nature Geoscience. According to this report, lead that was expelled to the atmosphere through exhaust gases stimulated the growth of clouds. Larger clouds imply less solar radiation, which has a definitive cool effect. In this EU funded study, investigators from Switzerland, Germany and the U.S. “captured” clouds on some mountains and compared them to artificial ones created in laboratories. Their conclusion: if the air has some lead suspended in it, temperature and humidity didn’t pay as significant a role in cloud formation.

The Notre-Planete observed “the major part of atmospheric lead comes from human activities, the main sources are coal combustion, gasoline lead, small aircraft flying at the altitude where the clouds form and construction that release lead from ground.

Emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming, but the emission of small particles of substances such as lead may have the opposite effect by interacting with water vapor in the atmosphere to trigger the formation of clouds. Depending on their altitude and the thickness of the clouds can reflect sunlight into space or trap the heat radiated by the Earth.

What’s interesting is that their models show that between 1970 and 1980, before unleaded gasoline became common, most dust on the Earth’s suface had lead particles in it. This might have helped more clouds get created, and that reduced the impact of greenhouse gases accumulation in the atmosphere.  Though research has proved time and again the ill effects of lead on human health, it is surprising to see the “side effect” that has helpedin guarding the environment.