Bush tries bait-and-switch with carbon dioxide cap

The sliver of good news? Reportedly, for the first time, the Bush Administration is not reflexively nixing carbon dioxide emissions caps. Of course, there’s always a catch.

The first one, in this case, is that BushCo would limit carbon caps to electric power plants only.

The second catch is this was a political trial balloon floated in a meeting with the most anti-cap Republican conservatives in Congress.

The third catch, as admitted by Dana Perino, is this is an attempt to avoid Environmental Protection regulation of CO2, per a Supreme Court ruling last year that says it has the power to do so:

“We are dealing with what we call a regulatory train wreck.”

So, here’s what the White House is going to propose to avoid the “regulatory train wreck.”
It will soften up the conservatives enough to get them on board for something.

It will then propose a cap-and-trade bill limited to power plants only.

It will throw in a rider that specifically says CO2 is not a human health issue and therefore not under EPA purview.

It will make the cap looser, with a longer implementation time, than legislation already in the Senate.

When the smoke and mirrors are apparent, and resisted, Bush will blame “obstructionist Democrats.”

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

There's more: "Bush tries bait-and-switch with carbon dioxide cap" >>

Zero-emisson robots to mow the back forty this summer

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

There's nothing like the smell of fresh cut grass and small-engine exhaust in the heat of a summer afternoon.

But the mower you're using is likely a summer-emission monster. The EPA estimates the average push mower gives off as much pollution per hour as 11 automobiles, while commercial mowers emit the equivalent of 34 vehicles over the same period of time.

So wouldn't this mower (seen in Knight Rider colors) be sweet?

She's self-propelled. Solar-powered. Heck, it even trims the clippings to "small irregular patterns" to help fertilize the lawn. (Heck, mine does that. Without the small and irregular part though. And let's pause for a brief moment for a reality check here... Does a mower really clip? I think it applies a death-whack via a sharp whirling ninja blade. Think Mortal Kombat here. If grass could scream...)

Back to the story...

The Husqvarna Group is now pushing (or not) the mower which uses as much energy as a "standard" light bulb. (Ah yes... but is that a CFL or incandescent? I knew I could trip them up).

The Brits web site has this nifty model... but it's not the solar-hybrid dealy-whopper mentioned here. But even that is better than the American version we have available.

From the UK Telegraph:

While not the first robotic mower to go on sale in Britain, the Automower is the most environmentally friendly, claims Husqvarna.

Bengt Andersson, the company's chief executive, said: "This is as green as mowing gets, without compromising on performance. Ninety per cent of Automower is recyclable, it eliminates the need for fertilisers, it is silent and it delivers perfect results with zero emissions."

Dubbed the Automower, it comes close to doing just about everything except cook you breakfast. And for those mowing in the wrong part of town... or leaving the mower behind in the wrong part of town... not to worry.

From GizMag:

The Automower is also weather proof and features an in-built theft protection system that requires a personal 4-digit code to be entered before the unit will operate.

Husqvarna has been producing robotic lawnmowers since 1995 and around 50,000 of the quiet, emission-free garden robots are already in use.

Current price: somewhere on the order of $3,000 to $5,000 clams. Ouch. But could it be worth a week of your time that you'd otherwise be spending behind the mower?

And men, the Automower... was invented by a woman named Towe Ressman. (Cue the Tim Allen grunt).

For you think global / act local peeps, this could be the practical solution to pushing grandma's souped-up rotary blade model this summer. Me? I'm stuck putting the "man" into manual labor.

See you over the fence.

There's more: "Zero-emisson robots to mow the back forty this summer" >>

Texas - more polluting than California and Pennsylvania combined

Not on smog, soot or ozone, but on what our Preznit-elect said in 2000 was a pollutant: carbon dioxide. If it were its own nation, the idea of which many native Texans like to brag about and many other Americans sometimes fervently wish were actually the case, it would be the world’s eighth-largest global warming polluter. It’s actually slipped from its No. 7 spot of five years ago, but only because of Canada’s massive atmospheric destruction to extract oil sands.

Here’s a breakdown of why:

Considering its role in the U.S. economy, it's no surprise Texas ranks as it does. As the nation's leading producer of energy, and with more cattle and oil refineries than any other state, it is essentially America's power plant, gas pump and beef basket. Yes, all those cows play a part. While many environmentalists focus on the methane (another greenhouse gas) produced by cows, the raising of cattle also contributes to CO2 emissions (the burning of fuel to transport cattle and meat, etc.). A study released last summer by Japanese scientists showed that production of just 1 kilogram of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home.

Simple answer: eat less beef. Another reason is, if you have to eat meat, it only takes 4-5 pounds of plant food to put a pound of weight on a chicken or hog. It takes 8 pounds of feed with a cow.

But the problem isn’t just with farting cows in the country. Read on below the fold:

Here’s the real problem today, though and it’s in urban Texas:

But it's not just industry and agriculture that give Texas such an outsize carbon footprint. Texans epitomize America's penchant for overconsumption, so much so that they've even coined their own phrase for superlarge portions: Texas-sized. The state's 23.5 million residents use nearly 3,000 more kilowatt-hours of electricity every year than the average American and a higher percentage of them drive large, gas-guzzling vehicles. Of the 20 million registered vehicles in Texas, one in four is a pickup truck. Of the 245 million vehicles registered in the United States, only 16 percent are pickups, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Last year light trucks made up 61 percent of all new vehicles (both personal and commercial) sold in Texas, compared to just over half of total vehicle sales in the country.

Nearly a third of Texas's carbon emissions come from transportation. With so much wide-open space, Texas hasn’t needed the kind of urban planning that promotes density. Rather, it is a state of far-flung towns and cities, connected by highways and with practically no mass transit. Air quality has suffered as a result; by some estimates more than half of all Texans live in areas where the air is unsafe to breathe, as defined by the EPA's Clean Air Act.

And, here’s the attitude that seeps from Gov. Helmethair (Rick Perry) on down:

Even in the reddest of Red States, one would think that such a health hazard would cause Texas to get serious about air pollution. But it is one of only 15 states without a climate action plan in place or even under consideration. This at a time when some of the most aggressive state plans have taken shape under Republican governors, according to national climate protection groups. In 2006, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger muscled through the most ambitious carbon cap-and-trade plan of any state in the country, aimed at reducing statewide CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Last summer Florida’s GOP Gov. Charlie Crist signed executive orders to slash the state's greenhouse-gas emissions to 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty last year signed a law requiring state utilities to generate a quarter of their power from renewable sources by 2025, and in Connecticut, Gov. Jodi Rell’s Energy Vision initiative calls for 20 percent of all energy used and sold in the state to come from clean or renewable sources by 2020.

Result?

Last year the Texas Association of Manufacturers and Houston-based Exxon Mobil successfully lobbied against a bill that would have provided incentives to homeowners and businesses to install solar panels. The Republican-held state legislature even voted down a bill that would have allowed cities to increase their sales tax in order to fund the construction of light rail systems, for fear of appearing to be seen as raising taxes. When a Democratic state senator from Austin proposed a bill that would have merely set up a task force to study climate change, it was defeated thanks to fierce opposition from the business community, including the Texas Oil and Gas Association and Texas Automobile Dealers Association.

Contrary to Perry’s feeble joke attempt that the biggest source of global warming is Al Gore’s mouth, it’s his own flapping trap that’s the problem.

Help may be on the horizon, though. The Peak Oil horizon. Oil prices staying over $100 a barrel will force more more Dallasite, Houstonian, and even Austinite Red State/neck driver, all of whom are such titty-babies they slow their pickups and SUVs down to half a mile per hour for speed bumps, to junk their gas guzzlers which will never see the likes of an unpaved road, and buy cars instead.

There's more: "Texas - more polluting than California and Pennsylvania combined" >>

California to sue BushCo over EPA waiver denial

As I noted earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency, in wake of the new energy bill and its higher car mileage standards that Congress just passed, denied California (and 12 other states wanting to piggyback) a waiver to institute new standards on carbon dioxide emissions.

Well, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t taking it lying down. He says he’s going to sue.

“I am extremely disappointed by EPA's decision to block the will of millions of people in California and 16 other states who want us to take tough action against global warming,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

“I have no doubt that we will prevail because the law, science, and the public’s demand for leadership are on our side,” Schwarzenegger said.

Fortunately, with the BushCo clock running, the EPA will have a new chief in place by the time this suit progresses very far.

There's more: "California to sue BushCo over EPA waiver denial" >>

EPA proves it’s part of BushCo, rejects California CO2 wavier

The Environmental Protection Agency, using what opponents claim is bad math to downplay the mpg effect of California’s desire to regulate automobile CO2, has officially rejected California’s waiver request. It was the first time EPA had fully denied a California waiver since Congress gave the state permission to seek them in 1967.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson claimed it was too piecemeal a solution (duhhh, Congress’ explicit intent of the waiver allowance being ignored) and that the new fuel economy bill (which is actually voluntary for years and which California backers say will be slower to improve mpg than California controlling CO2) should override California’s request.

This, like many other BushCo actions, is so bare-bones political it’s laughable … or would be, if not so serious.

There's more: "EPA proves it’s part of BushCo, rejects California CO2 wavier" >>

Levin trying to gut energy bill and Bush is piggybacking

Sen. Carl Levin is reportedly trying to jigger things, in the name of getting EPA and the Transportation Department on the same page, to restrict the ability of California to enact more stringent pollution controls, most namely, now, on carbon dioxide.

Shock me that a Michigander in Congress would do this, even after this backdoor gutting of the bill had already been shut down in the House.

Of course, the Polluter-in-Chief is ready to go along for the ride.

Both Levin and Bush argue that just one agency should have actual authority over mileage and related issues, and both want to put EPA in a purely advisory position.

Shockingly, this comes after the Supreme Court ruled this summer that EPA can regulate CO2; tie that with the EPA letting California set more stringent pollution rules, and you have the basis for California to set tougher CO2 standards, and for states that have EPA waivers to follow California on other issues to do so here.

In essence, both Levin and Bush want to do an end run on the SCOTUS ruling, pull the rug out from under California and tag-along states, and keep CO2 regs off the U.S. table – period.

Don’t believe the lies about wanting to coordinate government agencies; it’s all about gutting CO2 regs.

There's more: "Levin trying to gut energy bill and Bush is piggybacking" >>

Business group: CO2 cuts don’t have to be socially pricey

The McKinsey Group, a consulting firm, claims the U.S. can make significant carbon dioxide cuts without major lifestyle changes. McKinsey says increased fuel efficiency in cars, much greater use of fluorescent lights, better heating/air conditioning/appliance efficiency and building insulation, and carbon sequestration will do the trick.

Well, I’m with you on the first three.

Now, will the Big Three, and green-traitor Toyota, stop fighting CAFE standard increases?

Will the federal government pass legislation to phase out incandescent light bulbs and to set appliance efficiency and building standards?

And, will McKinsey find any reputable organization to guarantee that once-sequestered CO2 will remain always-sequestered CO2?

And, as the article notes, if electric utilities have to pay the costs of sequestration, how will the poor be kept from being the most hurt by electric bill increases?

The devil’s always in the details, isn’t it?

There's more: "Business group: CO2 cuts don’t have to be socially pricey" >>

Good news for controlling auto CO2 emissions

Federal Judge William K. Sessions has ruled that California and 14 other, mainly New England, states have the right to regulate automotive carbon dioxide emissions. Couple that with the Supreme Court ruling this summer than the Environmental Protection Agency has CO2 pollution regulation powers, and I just don’t see automakers having a chance of winning this case on appeal — with one exception noted below.

The suit was in Vermont, which adopted a copy of California’s pioneering CO2 control law. California, by law, has the right to go beyond federal standards on pollution levels, with the granting of an EPA waiver. Other states have the right to adopt California laws when California goes beyond federal standards, but cannot go beyond federal standards on their own.

Here’s the proposed California law:

Under the California law, the emissions reductions for cars in the 2016 model year could be as much as 30 percent or more below current levels.

California regulators have required that by 2012 emissions from cars and light trucks be reduced by 25 percent from 2005 levels. For larger trucks and sport utility vehicles, 18 percent cuts were required.

Sessions specifically cited the SCOTUS ruling; he also rejected the idea that California, and the other states following it, are just trying to regulate gas mileage, which is purely a federal issue.

The one possible reason Sessions could be overturned? University of Vermont law professor Patrick Parenteau noted that California hasn’t gotten its EPA waiver yet (a ruling is planned before the end of this year) and thus Sessions could be overturned on grounds of jumping the gun.

I say that’s tortuous reasoning, as the automakers jumped the gun by bringing the suit in the first place.

Otherwise, Sessions sounds like he made himself well-informed on the technological feasibility of the California requirements; he reject auto industry arguments this could cost as many as 65,000 jobs.

Poppycock; people are going to buy new cars, period.

There's more: "Good news for controlling auto CO2 emissions" >>