3. Since we got to know about the opinion of several persons on the negative health effects of radiation by cell phone use and microwave ovens, I thought it might be interesting to have a look on the (I assume) more scientific results of my home, the European Union or in detail the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. They published an update of their 2007 opinion considering new studies in 2009.
I made a small collection of statements that are directly contradicting the theories/positions of the persons mentioned in class.
However, everybody should be free to "construct" her or his own reality... ----------- "It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans."
"[Previously], it was concluded that scientific studies had failed to provide support for a relationship between RF exposure and selfreported symptoms. Although an association between RF exposure and single symptoms was indicated in some new studies, taken together, there is a lack of consistency in the findings."
"Scientific studies have indicated that a nocebo effect (an adverse non-specific effect that is caused by expectation or belief that something is harmful) may play a role in symptom formation. As in the previous opinion, there is no evidence supporting that individuals, including those attributing symptoms to RF exposure, are able to detect RF fields. There is some evidence that RF fields can influence EEG patterns and sleep in humans. However, the health relevance is uncertain and mechanistic explanation is lacking."
"Results from two case-control studies have recently become available. The first case-control study in South Korea involved 1,928 childhood leukaemia cases diagnosed between 1993 and 1999 and an equal number of hospital-based controls. [...] Although there was an excess of leukaemias in a 2 km radius of the transmitters [...] no association was seen between childhood leukaemia risk and the predicted field strengths."
"No statistically significant (p<0.05) increase of tumour incidence was found in any of the studies reviewed."
"The evaluation of the scientific data at the time of the 2007 opinion suggested that symptoms are not correlated to RF field exposure, but few studies had addressed this issue directly."
"With the exception of a few findings in otherwise negative studies, there is no evidence that acute or long-term RF exposure at SAR levels relevant for mobile telephony can influence cognitive functions in humans or animals."
1. Dakyung Lee 2. Saving Energy in Cities 3. This article primarily discussed the new plan proposed by elected leaders in New York City that is aimed at reducing energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases by making reconstruction of older buildings a mandatory obligation. The existing conditions of the older buildings in New York City lead to an inefficient system for heating, cooling and electrifying of buildings, which accounts for “80 percent of the city’s carbon-dioxide emissions and their energy costs are about $15 billion a year.” This project is not only aimed at building improvements but also will help make new jobs available. As the article mentions, the city officials are predicting that the building upgrade will save about $750 million a year in energy costs for owners of these buildings. While the city official’s proposals are aimed to benefit both parties, as there is estimated to be a cost improvement for the owners and an environmental improvement for the city of New York, there are strong oppositions from the property owners against this mandatory project. The multiple benefits that this project presents seem reasonable that the property owners should agree to take part in this plan, and it is senseless that the property owners are arguing that the outside consultants are trying to make profit from this project and that this matter should only be handled under their own desires and willingness to participate in the plan. For me, it seems very reasonable that the government officials are only requiring owners to invest in building improvements under the condition that these investments are sure to outweigh the cost of energy bills within five years. In class, we have recently been discussing how so many policies and infrastructures in our society are shaped by politicized institutionalism. It will be interesting to research further on how these leaders came up with this proposal and who is involved in the behind-scenes of the project. Also, it will be interesting to see whether this project will actually take place and to see who “wins” in carrying out or opposing to this new plan.
--------------
Elected leaders in New York City will propose a suite of laws and other initiatives on Wednesday aimed at reducing energy consumption and related emissions of greenhouse gases by requiring owners of thousands of older buildings to upgrade everything from boilers to light bulbs. Planners asserted that the package, drafted by the offices of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, would result in $2.9 billion in private investment in building improvements by 2022 and generate 2,000 new jobs in energy auditing and related fields as well as thousands of temporary construction jobs. City officials estimated that it would save property owners roughly $750 million a year in energy costs, city officials said. The program would begin in 2013, with 2,200 buildings performing audits and beginning upgrades each year for a decade. To limit political hurdles, improvements to a building would be mandatory only if the energy audits showed that the costs of the improvements could be recouped through declines in energy bills within five years. Mayor Bloomberg will roll out the proposal on Wednesday, as Earth Day celebrations unfold across the city and the nation. Yet despite the green gloss, there are signs that he and his allies on the City Council could face significant opposition to the plan from property owners. Groups representing building owners and managers have already told the mayor’s office that they strongly oppose some of the proposed steps. Seattle is also introducing a plan on Wednesday to encourage energy thrift in buildings, but it does not include mandatory upgrades. The moves are part of a nationwide push — from Berkeley, Calif., to Austin, Tex. — to cut back energy waste and consider the impact that emissions from buildings have on the climate. By many estimates, the heating, cooling and electrifying of buildings accounts for more than one-third of the country’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas linked by scientists to global warming. The focus on older buildings is particularly important in New York, where buildings account for 80 percent of the city’s carbon-dioxide emissions and their energy costs are about $15 billion a year, said Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. New construction with tighter energy standards will ensure greater efficiency, but most of today’s older structures will be around for decades to come, he added. “Existing buildings are in fact the nut that must be cracked if we are ever going to make a dent on the demand side in terms of energy,” Mr. Aggarwala said. The efforts in New York and Seattle will be aided in part by a portion of the $2.8 billion in energy efficiency and conservation block grants included in the federal stimulus package, officials in both cities said. New York City plans to use $16 million in stimulus money to prime a revolving-loan fund that will help property owners pay for energy improvements. Seattle will use $1.2 million from a stimulus grant to provide loans for energy-efficient upgrades to buildings there, Seattle officials said. Told of the cities’ plans, Van Jones, the new White House special adviser on green jobs, said the country was finally moving to harvest the “low-hanging fruit” of building efficiency. “Getting buildings to waste less energy results in job creation and cutting carbon pollution,” Mr. Jones said. “Money that was literally going out the window can be reinvested in businesses, in consumer purchases or savings.” The New York requirements for buildings, if approved, would in theory reduce the city’s total carbon-dioxide emissions by 2022 by around 3 million tons a year. That is equivalent to 5 percent of the city’s total emissions of 63 million tons in 2005, officials said. The planned reduction in emissions from building improvements equals all such emissions now from the city of Oakland, Calif., Mr. Aggarwala said. Among four related bills to be introduced, one would create the city’s first energy code, requiring for the first time that upgrades to equipment in all of the city’s one million structures meet the latest standards for energy efficiency. The existing state energy code allows many renovations to take place without a switch to the latest, most efficient components. Most of the plan’s other elements apply only to the city’s larger buildings. All 22,000 buildings in the city with more than 50,000 square feet of floor space would have to conduct energy audits every 10 years, according to city officials. (City-owned buildings of 10,000 square feet or more, and most schools, would be audited and upgraded as well.) Owners of larger buildings would have to participate in an online “benchmarking” program of the Environmental Protection Agency that creates a profile of a building’s overall energy efficiency. The results would be made public along with the property’s tax-assessment information. Any improvements in windows, insulation or other building components that would pay off in saved energy costs over five years would be mandatory, according to the plan. Officials from the New York chapter of the Building Owners and Managers Association said they supported the energy code, lighting improvements and steps requiring energy “benchmarking.” But they said they strongly opposed the biggest component of the plan: the required energy audits and mandatory upgrades. In a recent letter to the mayor’s office, Angelo J. Grima, the president of the New York chapter, said the plan to have upgrades determined by outside energy auditors could lead to inflated prices and the wrong solutions. “We believe that the building prioritization of retrofitting is best left in the hands of the building owner/manager, not outside consultants who seek to bundle projects and lead to higher costs for our members,” his letter said. But Ms. Quinn, the City Council speaker, said that opponents would have a hard time marshaling an effective argument against the measures, given the multiple benefits. “There’s always somebody against something,” she said. “But I do think this package is comprehensive thoughtful and fair and sends a message that making buildings and real estate green is not something that stands in the way of business owners and others’ making money.” ----- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/science/earth/22green.html?_r=1&ref=science
3. Presently, President Lee is encouraging the use of bicycles as a means of transportation. It says in the article that pollution-free bicycles will provide good health, save money, and contribute to the fight against air pollution. However, I am skeptical about the reality of “bicycle heaven” for now. Especially, Seoul is not a bicycle friendly city. Its infrastructure is designed for automobiles. So we should see about the 3,100 kilometers of bike paths being paved.
-----------------------------
It is never too late for South Korea to wage a campaign to encourage the use of bicycles. Especially amid a worldwide economic crisis, commuters are thinking about riding bicycles to work as being good for their health, saving money and contributing to the fight against air pollution. No wonder it can kill three birds with one stone.
That's why President Lee Myung-bak is adamant about turning the nation into a ``bicycle heaven.'' In his biweekly radio address, he said, ``(The) green way of life is the call of our times. Bringing back pollution-free bicycles as a key means of transportation is a path we must take.'' Bicycle promotion is part of his drive for green growth.
The nation should have started the bicycle riding campaign much earlier. But, now it is good to see the country riding on the bicycle boom. In fact, riders are on the steady rise for leisure, sports and transportation. We expect that the use of bicycles will rise considerably, boosted by a series of promotion packages.
Such measures include paving 3,100 kilometers of bike paths across the country over the next 10 years. The government also plans to launch an annual international race, ``Tour de Korea,'' from 2012. It also seeks to introduce an insurance policy for cyclists, build bike-only lanes on major roads and create a cyclist-only subway car.
What's most important is to allow people to ride bicycles safely and comfortably. In fact, most parents are uneasy about their children's bike riding because they think it is dangerous in our living environment. Provincial governments and local authorities are building more bike roads. But they are still not enough to make people feel like pedaling.
We cannot help but point out that many bike paths recently carved out on sidewalks are such that no one can make sure of the safety of either bikers or pedestrians. Particularly, roads in major cities are mostly exclusively for automobiles. This shows that the nation has neglected to create a bicycle-friendly infrastructure. In this situation, bicycle riders are usually concerned about the risk of accidents.
According to the Seoul metropolitan government, 266 riders sustained injuries from bicycle-related traffic accidents in 2006. The number jumped to 807 last year. But the real number was considered much higher than the reported cases. A man fell into a coma after being hit by a car in Changwon, South Gyeongsang Province, while pedaling from his home to work.
Another problem is that the government might push the bicycle promotion as part of ``showroom'' policies that only show people it is doing something about a problem. Critics say that a plan to build 1,400 kilometers of bike paths around four major rivers is designed to promote President Lee's pet project for river refurbishment. Policymakers should not shout empty slogans for political purposes. Rather, they must take substantial and realistic measures to make bicycles an integral part of our daily lives. --- http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/202_44713.html
1. Kyuhee Shim 2. California goes for solar energy 3. Once again the state of California has issued a law encouraging the use of sustainable energy. I am happy that California is giving the boost to electrical companies in beginning the needed transition. I do hope that this time the law succeeds in establishing and possibly expanding the use of solar energy – unlike the sad end of the electric car. And I believe that this time California will succeed. Already two major corporations have made very big deals with the solar company BrightSource, which means we can expect from them to protect their large investment. Also, the consumption of electricity is ‘inconspicuous’, so we don’t have to deal with many of the problems that came with the electric car, such as persuading consumers to purchase the product. I am just worried that there might be some people that somehow become less profitable by this change that they might try to obstruct the entire process. Although it is not mentioned in this article, I am sure there is much political debate around this issue, and as we have seen from the electric car bad politics can easily kill a good idea. 4. ------------------------------------------ 5. PG&E expands solar power plans David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, May 14, 2009
(05-13) 18:31 PDT -- California's big plans for solar power keep getting bigger. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and a young Oakland company on Wednesday signed what may be the world's largest solar deal, one that will create a string of seven solar power plants generating enough electricity for 530,000 homes. BrightSource Energy of Oakland will build the plants in the Southern California desert and sell the power to PG&E for an undisclosed amount of money. Fields of mirrors at each plant will focus sunlight on centralized towers, boiling water within the towers, creating steam and turning turbines. The first plant could open in 2012 at the Ivanpah dry lake bed in San Bernardino County. San Francisco's PG&E needs the juice. California law requires the state's electrical utilities to get 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by the end of 2010, although they have three more years to comply if necessary. PG&E has been frantically signing contracts with solar and wind companies, even agreeing to buy power from a startup that wants to build large solar arrays in space. But the credit crisis may kill or delay some of those projects. Expanding the agreement PG&E and BrightSource already have a history. Last year, PG&E agreed to buy as much as 900 megawatts from three solar power plants BrightSource planned to build. The deal announced Wednesday greatly expands that agreement, with PG&E potentially buying 1,310 megawatts. "We are continuing to contract with a variety of renewable developers - that hasn't changed at all," said PG&E spokeswoman Jennifer Zerwer. "But we did decide to renegotiate with BrightSource because they have made strides with demonstrating their technology, moving forward with their (government) permits and getting financing." Although one megawatt can power about 750 homes, the output from solar plants varies with the seasons and the time of day. So PG&E estimates that BrightSource's seven plants will be able to supply 530,000 homes. For BrightSource, Wednesday's deal represents another coup. Earlier this year, the 5-year-old company signed an agreement to supply 1,300 megawatts of electricity to Southern California Edison in what was then considered the world's largest solar deal. The new PG&E agreement just barely tops it. Technology studied At a time when some solar companies are collapsing - victims of the credit crisis - BrightSource has been able to demonstrate to the utilities that its technology works. The company built a demonstration facility in Israel that the utilities have extensively studied. "PG&E looked hard at what we'd done," said John Woolard, BrightSource's chief executive officer. "They looked at the results from our plant in Israel, and that built a lot of confidence that we were meeting milestones and delivering. That's what we're proudest of." Governor's blessing Wednesday's deal was big enough to draw praise from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made renewable power a cornerstone of California's policies to fight global warming. "By committing to increase the amount of solar power, this announcement serves as more evidence that reliable, renewable and pollution-free technology is here to stay, and sunshine will eventually power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses across our Golden State," he said in a statement. E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com. 6. ------------------------------------ 7. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BU7V17K1KO.DTL
1. Yoon Hye Sung 2. Toxic mercury in seas tied to algae, air Study finds the process by which ocean fish can become poisoned 3. I was interested in this article because of the word 'algae' which I learned in the class. But I didn't understand well what 'algae' is at that time. Surely, polluted ocean is very dangerous to other lives. When toxic mercury in seas is tied to algae, ocean fish can eat it and then they die. If toxic mercury is accumulated in the bodies of ocean fish, people may eat the fish. Then it will be harmful to people. I think these problems are because of human-beings. Whenever I find articles about environmental issues, I feel disappointed. People should stop this bad circulation. We have to care about the environment. We live in the nature. People should realize the fact that we are always with the nature. ------------------------ Ocean fish can contain high levels of mercury, even though mercury levels in the seawater around them are extraordinarily low. Now, scientists have an explanation for what's going on.
A new study in the Pacific Ocean suggests that algae at the water's surface absorb mercury from the atmosphere and then sink to mid-depths, where they decompose and release methylmercury, a highly toxic form of the metal that poisons both fish and the people who eat them.
Mercury concentrations have increased in the Pacific by 30 percent in the last 20 years, the study found. And if emissions continue to rise as expected, the scientists predict another 50 percent jump by 2050.
"We can now explain why large predatory fish in the open oceans have methylmercury in the first place," said Dave Krabbenhoft, a geochemist with the United States Geological Survey in Middleton, Wisc. "We don't have to scratch our heads anymore."
Mercury is a byproduct of coal combustion, industrial waste and other human activities. It is also a powerful neurotoxin that can cause developmental problems in babies and heart disease in adults, among other health woes. More than 90 percent of methylmercury that gets into people in the United States comes from ocean fish and shellfish, especially tuna.
Yet, compared to lakes, oceans haven't been studied much when it comes to mercury, and there hasn't been a clear explanation for how mercury gets from the air into ocean fish. One reason is that ocean waters contain such low amounts of methylmercury that scientists have struggled to collect reliable samples.
Krabbenhoft and colleagues were the first to employ new, highly sensitive techniques to get water samples at 16 sites in the Pacific Ocean, form Alaska to Hawaii. At each site, the researchers analyzed samples every 100 meters (328 feet) or so, down to a depth of 1,000 meters.
When the team graphed their results, they saw that methylmercury levels were highest at a depth where oxygen was being depleted the fastest. In this zone, microbes are busy decomposing dead algae, which sink to a level where water is dense enough to stop their descent.
That depth ranges from 300 meters (984 feet) to 800 meters (2,620 feet), depending on the site. Tuna swim to those depths, Krabbenhoft added, but not deeper.
"This is the first discovery of a specific depth in the ocean at any particular spot where the maximum amount of methylmercury is produced," said Krabbenhoft. "That's a really significant finding."
Previous theories proposed that oceanic mercury came either from volcanoes that sit tens of thousands of meters below the surface, or from river runoff.
Now, the most plausible theory for how mercury gets into fish in the middle of the ocean, Krabbenhoft said, is that algae absorb mercury at the surface, especially off the coast of Asia, where power plants burn lots of coal. Then, circulation patterns carry the algae in a counter-clockwise pattern across the Pacific to North America and back again. As the algae die, sink and decompose along the way, they release methylmercury, which works its way up the food chain into fish and the people who eat them.
Compared to previous research, the scientists reported an alarming rise in ocean mercury levels in just the last two decades. Their results appeared in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
"It was totally surprising that they were able to detect an increase in mercury concentration in the Pacific Ocean," said Vincent St. Louis, a biogeochemist at the University of Alberta. "That's a big body of water."
By clearly linking human-produced emissions with rising mercury levels in fish, St. Louis added, the work might also help convince policy-makers that there's a problem with allowing those emissions to rise unchecked. --------- URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30707671/
3. There are many international enviornmental conference and agreements. Representative from all over the world select in a specific city. Of course they gather and talk about what people can do to improve our enviornmental situation. However I heard from kbs new about one or two years ago~ Because of the conference quite a lot amount of CO2 has released. It was really interesting and contradictory. And it also mean something. I think we should lessen our conferences because (I am not sure but) I personally think it is less worth it. I mean the result or how well people practice the promise does not correspond. And is there no way to do through internet?? What can we do to make up for the weak points?? -------------------------------
Gwangju to Host UN Environment Forum in 2011
By Do Je-hae Staff Reporter
The southwestern city of Gwangju will work side by side with San Francisco in the United States to host a U.N. conference on environmental issues in 2011.
The event will coincide with the 2011 Gwangju World Environment Expo.
The Gwangju City administration announced Sunday that it will sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its San Francisco counterparts to organize the conference to discuss developments of the U.N. Urban Environmental Accord.
The organizers will invite 107 cities from around the world to discuss pressing urban environmental concerns.
After the signing of the MOU, Gwangju officials will begin preparations for the event by constructing networks with the 107 cities to be invited and asking for their participation.
In addition, Gwangju will work in cooperation with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to solicit participation of leaders in environment protection such as Guangzhou in China and San Antonio, Texas, in the United States.
Established in 2005, the U.N. Urban Environmental Accord was signed by 59 cities including San Francisco, London, Moscow and Gwangju, and represents their resolute commitment to sustainable environmental protection.
2. Sunlight control, reducing your electricity bills
3. (Sorry for the late post.. I typed it up on Saturday but for some reason it didn't post?? Also I can't seem to copy & paste into this box here anymore...)
I find it interesting that this article refers to home generated power and electric cars as "a long way off" when both are entirely possible today. I guess that's insufficient marketing for you. But anyway:
I've only ever thought of cars as the biggest contributors to global warming, but I guess I just never thought about our houses. I'm a huge air conditing-user myself, and I know I should just go back to old-fashioned fans, but I absolutely hate being in a stuffy room where hot air is only being circulated by a bunch of fans. I never considered 'sunlight control'.
It all depends on the windows, of course. They get sunlight in, but unfortunately they let heat out as well, which is fine in the summers but not very efficient during the winter. Luckily it is now pretty easy to find some very nice insulating shades that are even supported by the government (which makes everything a lot easier to get).
Once it starts getting hot in Seoul, I'm going to start closing the curtains all day, even if that does make the house a bit gloomy. It beats having to turn on the air conditioner 24/7.
------------------------------------------------ SIMPLE, PASSIVE, SOLAR ENERGY (YOUR WINDOWS). May 14, 2009 – Vol.14 No.8 by Bruce Mulliken, Green Energy News
Lofty goals. That seems to be the direction the green movement is headed at the moment. Plug-in cars for all. Solar panels on every roof. A wind turbine in every back yard. It’s good to have dreams. Lofty goals are great. Reaching for the sky lifts the spirits. Reality says that electric cars and home generated power for all are a long way off for most of us. That’s OK. though. Doing the best with available tools can be an equally rewarding goal. It’s fun to be clever, to beat the system, with what you have, with what’s available now. Take solar energy. Everyone is exposed to it. We use it every day. Everyone can use solar as a practical energy source as well as save energy by controlling it to meet our needs. Surprisingly, tapping solar energy probably requires the least investment of any renewable energy source and it doesn’t require installing semiconductors on the roof. It requires opening and closing wind blinds, shades, curtains or shutters to let sunlight in when we need it and keep it out when we don’t. Sunlight streams in the windows of our homes warming everything it touches: the floor, the furniture, the cat in the sunny spot. In turn, the floor and furniture release that thermal energy into the air, heating us even when we’re not sitting directly in the light. On a cold winter day the warmth of the sun keeps a house warm and cuts energy bills. On a hot summer day that same warm sunlight-drenched room can cause the air conditioner to run more often, using up energy, adding to greenhouse gas emissions and adding to the electric bill. Houses – which are responsible for more global warming emissions than cars (because they “run” 24 hours a day) – can easily be tamed energy wise, and in these slow economic times save considerable money. I broke the addiction to central air conditioning a few years ago by going cold turkey, no longer using it, shutting it down. My summertime utility bill, which includes electricity as well as natural gas for heat and hot water, has dropped from more than $200 a month in the summer, to around $50, and that’s living in Baltimore, Maryland where summers are anything but cool. Fans and one small window air conditioning unit help keep the solid masonry, brick oven house comfortable. I attribute much of the energy savings to keeping sunlight out with the use of window blinds. True, the house is a little dark on bright sunny days but it’s only for a few months and the savings are worth it, for me and the environment. Not only is sunlight control the least expensive renewable energy you can buy, the government will now help you do it by helping financially to make your windows more efficient. Windows, of course, not only let sunlight in, but being the least insulated part of a home let heat out, which we don’t want either. At least one window treatment company, EcoSmart Insulating Shades, says one of its product lines, its Sidetrack Insulation System, is certified for a federal tax credit in 2009 and 2010. Owners of existing homes can earn a tax credit up to $1500 by installing the ComforTrack Energy Saving Sidetrack Insulating System this year or next. The Sidetrack Insulation System features insulating honeycomb fabric with an integrated sidetrack system that seals off the gaps between the shades and the window to create a solid insulating barrier to drafts. Further, using light-blocking window shades with this simple system, sunlight can be blocked as well. The tax credit is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Stimulus package. Under section 25C of the Internal Revenue Code, homeowners can now receive a 30 percent credit on the cost of qualified energy efficiency improvements. Tax credits are available for many types of home improvements. You can spend it all on one improvement or divide it through other qualifying improvements. EcoSmart builds its shades in their factory in Essex Junction, Vermont. Every shade is hand signed by its craftsperson, actually a green job. Using something as simple as a window covering to control sunlight infiltration and heat loss is no less important than mounting solar electric panels on a roof. And it’s considerably less expensive, especially with a break from Uncle Sam. -------- http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2009/20090039.html
2. China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.
3. Right from the middle of the article, I think this sums it up very well: “We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”
From the article, it is easy to deduce that China still has problems with emission control. This is obvious, and China is notorious for having the most coal plants in the world. It is great that China has upped the emission standards, and not only that, but it is also great that China is utilizing the new technology as much as they can, despite the U.S. still being in the preliminary stages of approving it for the existing plants.
I like this statistic: "In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs."
40 percent efficiency is horrible, and like Professor Whitaker's example of the amount of energy lost through power lines (enough to light up the ceiling lights in our classroom that the artist used), it is a ubiquitous phenomenon around the world. I have yet to read an article that states that, yes, so and so country or city is the most energy efficient in the world, not only because they use environmentally friendly means of creating energy, but also maximizing the means of retaining it. Imagine if China filled that gap? The world would be a much safer place!
I think this article is one of the best I've read on China (also comparing with the US) in the past year. It shows a lot of progress for both countries.
The last paragraph of the article does a great summary of the progress of both countries.
--------------------------------
By KEITH BRADSHER Published: May 10, 2009 TIANJIN, China — China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.
Doug Kanter for The New York Times The Tianjin plant will be constructed in what is now a muddy field.
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.
While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.
Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.
“The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history,” said Hal Harvey, president of ClimateWorks, a group in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming.
Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.
Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.
“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.” Without doubt, China’s coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and global warming gases from the country are expected to continue increasing. China’s aim is to use the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase.
Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.
Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.
With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.
In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs. After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.
China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.
But by continuing to rely heavily on coal, which supplies 80 percent of its electricity, China ensures that it will keep emitting a lot of carbon dioxide; even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant.
Perhaps the biggest question now is how much further China can go beyond the recent steps. In particular, how fast will it move toward power plants that capture their emissions and store them underground or under the seafloor?
That technology could, in theory, create power plants that contribute virtually nothing to global warming. Many countries hope to develop such plants, though progress has been halting; Energy Secretary Chu has promised steps to speed up the technology in the United States.
China has just built a small, experimental facility near Beijing to remove carbon dioxide from power station emissions and use it to provide carbonation for beverages, and the government has a short list of possible locations for a large experiment to capture and store carbon dioxide. But so far, it has no plans to make this a national policy.
China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, and these do not emit carbon dioxide after they are built.
But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world’s third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.
“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.
Another problem is that China has finally developed the ability to build high-technology power plants only at the end of a national binge of building lower-tech coal-fired plants. Construction is now slowing because of the economic slump.
By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.
2. U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles
3. I forgot to post last week, so I'm doing two for this week.
Going with the "Who Killed the Electric Car" flow, this article clearly demonstrates the difference between the current presidential administration and the past one. Even though we all know that the cleanest technology exists and we are not using it, it is definitely still progress for the U.S. by raising emission standards.
"Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition."
The article says that Obama's plan will tighten emission standards almost to California's standards. Not only that, but also "The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said."
The article also says that it wants to put this act in place before GM makes a decision to file for bankruptcy. Chryslar has already filed, which means that it will be protected in regards to its future models.
All in all, I think this is a great push for the nation and California. It seems that everyone benefits in some form or another. Maybe except the oil giants. Also, it's good that Obama is implementing this within just 4 months of his inauguration into office. It helps define his character more.
------------------------------
By JOHN M. BRODER Published: May 18, 2009 WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday,embracing rules that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.
The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.
The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.
Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.
Yet the industry position represents an abrupt about-face after years of battling tougher mileage standards in the courts and in Congress, reflecting the change in the political climate and the industry’s shaky financial condition. The decision comes as General Motors and Chrysler are receiving billions of dollars in federal help, closing hundreds of dealerships and trying to design the products and business strategy they will need to survive.
“For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the industry’s largest trade association. “President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program.”
Mr. McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, has been working with Mr. Obama and his advisers on the issue since early this year.
In announcing the new program at the White House, Mr. Obama will be accompanied by Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, along with auto industry executives and environmental leaders.
The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.
The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.
The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years.
The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said.
“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards for two decades with the goal of curbing the gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
The administration had faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to put its emissions rules into effect. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he was also trying to find a way to rescue American auto companies from their financial crisis.
One ranking industry official said that the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors made a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of this month. The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.
To meet the new federal standards, auto companies will have to drastically change their product lineups in a relatively short time.
The companies have declined so far to comment on the costs involved in meeting a fleet standard of 35 miles a gallon. For starters, the automakers will probably have to sharply reduce the number of low-mileage models, like pickup trucks and large sedans.
The president’s decision will also accelerate the development of smaller cars and engines already under way.
But Mr. McCurdy said the industry could meet the new mileage targets using existing technology and improvements in future models. He said that 130 models already got 30 miles a gallon or better on the highway.
In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.
Mr. Obama will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations.
Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expired.
He also said the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a “harmonization” of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.
Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. He co-sponsored two bills in 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, one to raise fuel economy standards and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels.
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and improve their vehicles’ efficiency.
“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.
That inaction has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines.
Fran Pavley, the California state senator who sponsored the legislation that established the California standard, praised the decision as she traveled to Washington Monday to join the White House meeting on Tuesday.
She said through a spokeswoman that California would work on its own rules while the federal regulations were drafted. “This cleans up our air, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and continues to allow California to lead the way,” she said.
Micheline Maynard and Bill Vlasic contributed reporting.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
1. Martin Weiser
ReplyDelete2. EMF
3. Since we got to know about the opinion of several persons on the negative health effects of radiation by cell phone use and microwave ovens, I thought it might be interesting to have a look on the (I assume) more scientific results of my home, the European Union or in detail the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. They published an update of their 2007 opinion considering new studies in 2009.
I made a small collection of statements that are directly contradicting the theories/positions of the persons mentioned in class.
However, everybody should be free to "construct" her or his own reality...
-----------
"It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in
vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in
humans."
"[Previously], it was concluded that scientific
studies had failed to provide support for a relationship between RF exposure and selfreported
symptoms. Although an association between RF exposure and single symptoms
was indicated in some new studies, taken together, there is a lack of consistency in the
findings."
"Scientific studies have
indicated that a nocebo effect (an adverse non-specific effect that is caused by
expectation or belief that something is harmful) may play a role in symptom formation. As in the previous opinion, there is no evidence supporting that individuals, including
those attributing symptoms to RF exposure, are able to detect RF fields. There is some
evidence that RF fields can influence EEG patterns and sleep in humans. However, the
health relevance is uncertain and mechanistic explanation is lacking."
"Results from two case-control studies have recently become available. The first case-control study in South Korea involved 1,928 childhood leukaemia cases diagnosed between 1993 and 1999 and an equal number of hospital-based controls. [...] Although there
was an excess of leukaemias in a 2 km radius of the transmitters [...] no association was seen between childhood leukaemia risk and the predicted field strengths."
"No statistically
significant (p<0.05) increase of tumour incidence was found in any of the studies
reviewed."
"The evaluation of the scientific data at the time of the 2007 opinion suggested that
symptoms are not correlated to RF field exposure, but few studies had addressed this
issue directly."
"With the exception of a few findings in otherwise negative studies, there is no evidence
that acute or long-term RF exposure at SAR levels relevant for mobile telephony can
influence cognitive functions in humans or animals."
-------------
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_022.pdf
1. Dakyung Lee
ReplyDelete2. Saving Energy in Cities
3. This article primarily discussed the new plan proposed by elected leaders in New York City that is aimed at reducing energy consumption and emissions of greenhouse gases by making reconstruction of older buildings a mandatory obligation. The existing conditions of the older buildings in New York City lead to an inefficient system for heating, cooling and electrifying of buildings, which accounts for “80 percent of the city’s carbon-dioxide emissions and their energy costs are about $15 billion a year.” This project is not only aimed at building improvements but also will help make new jobs available. As the article mentions, the city officials are predicting that the building upgrade will save about $750 million a year in energy costs for owners of these buildings. While the city official’s proposals are aimed to benefit both parties, as there is estimated to be a cost improvement for the owners and an environmental improvement for the city of New York, there are strong oppositions from the property owners against this mandatory project.
The multiple benefits that this project presents seem reasonable that the property owners should agree to take part in this plan, and it is senseless that the property owners are arguing that the outside consultants are trying to make profit from this project and that this matter should only be handled under their own desires and willingness to participate in the plan.
For me, it seems very reasonable that the government officials are only requiring
owners to invest in building improvements under the condition that these investments are sure to outweigh the cost of energy bills within five years. In class, we have recently been discussing how so many policies and infrastructures in our society are shaped by politicized institutionalism. It will be interesting to research further on how these leaders came up with this proposal and who is involved in the behind-scenes of the project. Also, it will be interesting to see whether this project will actually take place and to see who “wins” in carrying out or opposing to this new plan.
--------------
Elected leaders in New York City will propose a suite of laws and other initiatives on Wednesday aimed at reducing energy consumption and related emissions of greenhouse gases by requiring owners of thousands of older buildings to upgrade everything from boilers to light bulbs.
Planners asserted that the package, drafted by the offices of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, would result in $2.9 billion in private investment in building improvements by 2022 and generate 2,000 new jobs in energy auditing and related fields as well as thousands of temporary construction jobs.
City officials estimated that it would save property owners roughly $750 million a year in energy costs, city officials said. The program would begin in 2013, with 2,200 buildings performing audits and beginning upgrades each year for a decade.
To limit political hurdles, improvements to a building would be mandatory only if the energy audits showed that the costs of the improvements could be recouped through declines in energy bills within five years.
Mayor Bloomberg will roll out the proposal on Wednesday, as Earth Day celebrations unfold across the city and the nation.
Yet despite the green gloss, there are signs that he and his allies on the City Council could face significant opposition to the plan from property owners.
Groups representing building owners and managers have already told the mayor’s office that they strongly oppose some of the proposed steps.
Seattle is also introducing a plan on Wednesday to encourage energy thrift in buildings, but it does not include mandatory upgrades.
The moves are part of a nationwide push — from Berkeley, Calif., to Austin, Tex. — to cut back energy waste and consider the impact that emissions from buildings have on the climate. By many estimates, the heating, cooling and electrifying of buildings accounts for more than one-third of the country’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas linked by scientists to global warming.
The focus on older buildings is particularly important in New York, where buildings account for 80 percent of the city’s carbon-dioxide emissions and their energy costs are about $15 billion a year, said Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. New construction with tighter energy standards will ensure greater efficiency, but most of today’s older structures will be around for decades to come, he added.
“Existing buildings are in fact the nut that must be cracked if we are ever going to make a dent on the demand side in terms of energy,” Mr. Aggarwala said.
The efforts in New York and Seattle will be aided in part by a portion of the $2.8 billion in energy efficiency and conservation block grants included in the federal stimulus package, officials in both cities said.
New York City plans to use $16 million in stimulus money to prime a revolving-loan fund that will help property owners pay for energy improvements.
Seattle will use $1.2 million from a stimulus grant to provide loans for energy-efficient upgrades to buildings there, Seattle officials said.
Told of the cities’ plans, Van Jones, the new White House special adviser on green jobs, said the country was finally moving to harvest the “low-hanging fruit” of building efficiency.
“Getting buildings to waste less energy results in job creation and cutting carbon pollution,” Mr. Jones said. “Money that was literally going out the window can be reinvested in businesses, in consumer purchases or savings.”
The New York requirements for buildings, if approved, would in theory reduce the city’s total carbon-dioxide emissions by 2022 by around 3 million tons a year. That is equivalent to 5 percent of the city’s total emissions of 63 million tons in 2005, officials said. The planned reduction in emissions from building improvements equals all such emissions now from the city of Oakland, Calif., Mr. Aggarwala said.
Among four related bills to be introduced, one would create the city’s first energy code, requiring for the first time that upgrades to equipment in all of the city’s one million structures meet the latest standards for energy efficiency. The existing state energy code allows many renovations to take place without a switch to the latest, most efficient components.
Most of the plan’s other elements apply only to the city’s larger buildings. All 22,000 buildings in the city with more than 50,000 square feet of floor space would have to conduct energy audits every 10 years, according to city officials. (City-owned buildings of 10,000 square feet or more, and most schools, would be audited and upgraded as well.)
Owners of larger buildings would have to participate in an online “benchmarking” program of the Environmental Protection Agency that creates a profile of a building’s overall energy efficiency. The results would be made public along with the property’s tax-assessment information.
Any improvements in windows, insulation or other building components that would pay off in saved energy costs over five years would be mandatory, according to the plan.
Officials from the New York chapter of the Building Owners and Managers Association said they supported the energy code, lighting improvements and steps requiring energy “benchmarking.” But they said they strongly opposed the biggest component of the plan: the required energy audits and mandatory upgrades.
In a recent letter to the mayor’s office, Angelo J. Grima, the president of the New York chapter, said the plan to have upgrades determined by outside energy auditors could lead to inflated prices and the wrong solutions.
“We believe that the building prioritization of retrofitting is best left in the hands of the building owner/manager, not outside consultants who seek to bundle projects and lead to higher costs for our members,” his letter said.
But Ms. Quinn, the City Council speaker, said that opponents would have a hard time marshaling an effective argument against the measures, given the multiple benefits.
“There’s always somebody against something,” she said. “But I do think this package is comprehensive thoughtful and fair and sends a message that making buildings and real estate green is not something that stands in the way of business owners and others’ making money.”
-----
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/science/earth/22green.html?_r=1&ref=science
1. Sohyun Park
ReplyDelete2. Bicycle Riding Campaign
3. Presently, President Lee is encouraging the use of bicycles as a means of transportation. It says in the article that pollution-free bicycles will provide good health, save money, and contribute to the fight against air pollution. However, I am skeptical about the reality of “bicycle heaven” for now. Especially, Seoul is not a bicycle friendly city. Its infrastructure is designed for automobiles. So we should see about the 3,100 kilometers of bike paths being paved.
-----------------------------
It is never too late for South Korea to wage a campaign to encourage the use of bicycles. Especially amid a worldwide economic crisis, commuters are thinking about riding bicycles to work as being good for their health, saving money and contributing to the fight against air pollution. No wonder it can kill three birds with one stone.
That's why President Lee Myung-bak is adamant about turning the nation into a ``bicycle heaven.'' In his biweekly radio address, he said, ``(The) green way of life is the call of our times. Bringing back pollution-free bicycles as a key means of transportation is a path we must take.'' Bicycle promotion is part of his drive for green growth.
The nation should have started the bicycle riding campaign much earlier. But, now it is good to see the country riding on the bicycle boom. In fact, riders are on the steady rise for leisure, sports and transportation. We expect that the use of bicycles will rise considerably, boosted by a series of promotion packages.
Such measures include paving 3,100 kilometers of bike paths across the country over the next 10 years. The government also plans to launch an annual international race, ``Tour de Korea,'' from 2012. It also seeks to introduce an insurance policy for cyclists, build bike-only lanes on major roads and create a cyclist-only subway car.
What's most important is to allow people to ride bicycles safely and comfortably. In fact, most parents are uneasy about their children's bike riding because they think it is dangerous in our living environment. Provincial governments and local authorities are building more bike roads. But they are still not enough to make people feel like pedaling.
We cannot help but point out that many bike paths recently carved out on sidewalks are such that no one can make sure of the safety of either bikers or pedestrians. Particularly, roads in major cities are mostly exclusively for automobiles. This shows that the nation has neglected to create a bicycle-friendly infrastructure. In this situation, bicycle riders are usually concerned about the risk of accidents.
According to the Seoul metropolitan government, 266 riders sustained injuries from bicycle-related traffic accidents in 2006. The number jumped to 807 last year. But the real number was considered much higher than the reported cases. A man fell into a coma after being hit by a car in Changwon, South Gyeongsang Province, while pedaling from his home to work.
Another problem is that the government might push the bicycle promotion as part of ``showroom'' policies that only show people it is doing something about a problem. Critics say that a plan to build 1,400 kilometers of bike paths around four major rivers is designed to promote President Lee's pet project for river refurbishment. Policymakers should not shout empty slogans for political purposes. Rather, they must take substantial and realistic measures to make bicycles an integral part of our daily lives.
---
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/05/202_44713.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Kyuhee Shim
ReplyDelete2. California goes for solar energy
3.
Once again the state of California has issued a law encouraging the use of sustainable energy. I am happy that California is giving the boost to electrical companies in beginning the needed transition. I do hope that this time the law succeeds in establishing and possibly expanding the use of solar energy – unlike the sad end of the electric car. And I believe that this time California will succeed. Already two major corporations have made very big deals with the solar company BrightSource, which means we can expect from them to protect their large investment. Also, the consumption of electricity is ‘inconspicuous’, so we don’t have to deal with many of the problems that came with the electric car, such as persuading consumers to purchase the product. I am just worried that there might be some people that somehow become less profitable by this change that they might try to obstruct the entire process. Although it is not mentioned in this article, I am sure there is much political debate around this issue, and as we have seen from the electric car bad politics can easily kill a good idea.
4. ------------------------------------------
5. PG&E expands solar power plans
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, May 14, 2009
(05-13) 18:31 PDT -- California's big plans for solar power keep getting bigger.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and a young Oakland company on Wednesday signed what may be the world's largest solar deal, one that will create a string of seven solar power plants generating enough electricity for 530,000 homes.
BrightSource Energy of Oakland will build the plants in the Southern California desert and sell the power to PG&E for an undisclosed amount of money. Fields of mirrors at each plant will focus sunlight on centralized towers, boiling water within the towers, creating steam and turning turbines. The first plant could open in 2012 at the Ivanpah dry lake bed in San Bernardino County.
San Francisco's PG&E needs the juice.
California law requires the state's electrical utilities to get 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by the end of 2010, although they have three more years to comply if necessary. PG&E has been frantically signing contracts with solar and wind companies, even agreeing to buy power from a startup that wants to build large solar arrays in space. But the credit crisis may kill or delay some of those projects.
Expanding the agreement
PG&E and BrightSource already have a history. Last year, PG&E agreed to buy as much as 900 megawatts from three solar power plants BrightSource planned to build. The deal announced Wednesday greatly expands that agreement, with PG&E potentially buying 1,310 megawatts.
"We are continuing to contract with a variety of renewable developers - that hasn't changed at all," said PG&E spokeswoman Jennifer Zerwer. "But we did decide to renegotiate with BrightSource because they have made strides with demonstrating their technology, moving forward with their (government) permits and getting financing."
Although one megawatt can power about 750 homes, the output from solar plants varies with the seasons and the time of day. So PG&E estimates that BrightSource's seven plants will be able to supply 530,000 homes.
For BrightSource, Wednesday's deal represents another coup.
Earlier this year, the 5-year-old company signed an agreement to supply 1,300 megawatts of electricity to Southern California Edison in what was then considered the world's largest solar deal. The new PG&E agreement just barely tops it.
Technology studied
At a time when some solar companies are collapsing - victims of the credit crisis - BrightSource has been able to demonstrate to the utilities that its technology works. The company built a demonstration facility in Israel that the utilities have extensively studied.
"PG&E looked hard at what we'd done," said John Woolard, BrightSource's chief executive officer. "They looked at the results from our plant in Israel, and that built a lot of confidence that we were meeting milestones and delivering. That's what we're proudest of."
Governor's blessing
Wednesday's deal was big enough to draw praise from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made renewable power a cornerstone of California's policies to fight global warming.
"By committing to increase the amount of solar power, this announcement serves as more evidence that reliable, renewable and pollution-free technology is here to stay, and sunshine will eventually power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses across our Golden State," he said in a statement.
E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.
6. ------------------------------------
7. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BU7V17K1KO.DTL
1. Yoon Hye Sung
ReplyDelete2. Toxic mercury in seas tied to algae, air
Study finds the process by which ocean fish can become poisoned
3. I was interested in this article because of the word 'algae' which I learned in the class. But I didn't understand well what 'algae' is at that time. Surely, polluted ocean is very dangerous to other lives. When toxic mercury in seas is tied to algae, ocean fish can eat it and then they die. If toxic mercury is accumulated in the bodies of ocean fish, people may eat the fish. Then it will be harmful to people.
I think these problems are because of human-beings. Whenever I find articles about environmental issues, I feel disappointed. People should stop this bad circulation. We have to care about the environment. We live in the nature. People should realize the fact that we are always with the nature.
------------------------
Ocean fish can contain high levels of mercury, even though mercury levels in the seawater around them are extraordinarily low. Now, scientists have an explanation for what's going on.
A new study in the Pacific Ocean suggests that algae at the water's surface absorb mercury from the atmosphere and then sink to mid-depths, where they decompose and release methylmercury, a highly toxic form of the metal that poisons both fish and the people who eat them.
Mercury concentrations have increased in the Pacific by 30 percent in the last 20 years, the study found. And if emissions continue to rise as expected, the scientists predict another 50 percent jump by 2050.
"We can now explain why large predatory fish in the open oceans have methylmercury in the first place," said Dave Krabbenhoft, a geochemist with the United States Geological Survey in Middleton, Wisc. "We don't have to scratch our heads anymore."
Mercury is a byproduct of coal combustion, industrial waste and other human activities. It is also a powerful neurotoxin that can cause developmental problems in babies and heart disease in adults, among other health woes. More than 90 percent of methylmercury that gets into people in the United States comes from ocean fish and shellfish, especially tuna.
Yet, compared to lakes, oceans haven't been studied much when it comes to mercury, and there hasn't been a clear explanation for how mercury gets from the air into ocean fish. One reason is that ocean waters contain such low amounts of methylmercury that scientists have struggled to collect reliable samples.
Krabbenhoft and colleagues were the first to employ new, highly sensitive techniques to get water samples at 16 sites in the Pacific Ocean, form Alaska to Hawaii. At each site, the researchers analyzed samples every 100 meters (328 feet) or so, down to a depth of 1,000 meters.
When the team graphed their results, they saw that methylmercury levels were highest at a depth where oxygen was being depleted the fastest. In this zone, microbes are busy decomposing dead algae, which sink to a level where water is dense enough to stop their descent.
That depth ranges from 300 meters (984 feet) to 800 meters (2,620 feet), depending on the site. Tuna swim to those depths, Krabbenhoft added, but not deeper.
"This is the first discovery of a specific depth in the ocean at any particular spot where the maximum amount of methylmercury is produced," said Krabbenhoft. "That's a really significant finding."
Previous theories proposed that oceanic mercury came either from volcanoes that sit tens of thousands of meters below the surface, or from river runoff.
Now, the most plausible theory for how mercury gets into fish in the middle of the ocean, Krabbenhoft said, is that algae absorb mercury at the surface, especially off the coast of Asia, where power plants burn lots of coal. Then, circulation patterns carry the algae in a counter-clockwise pattern across the Pacific to North America and back again. As the algae die, sink and decompose along the way, they release methylmercury, which works its way up the food chain into fish and the people who eat them.
Compared to previous research, the scientists reported an alarming rise in ocean mercury levels in just the last two decades. Their results appeared in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
"It was totally surprising that they were able to detect an increase in mercury concentration in the Pacific Ocean," said Vincent St. Louis, a biogeochemist at the University of Alberta. "That's a big body of water."
By clearly linking human-produced emissions with rising mercury levels in fish, St. Louis added, the work might also help convince policy-makers that there's a problem with allowing those emissions to rise unchecked.
---------
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30707671/
1. Soo- Bin
ReplyDelete2. Gwangju to Host UN Environment Forum in 2011
3. There are many international enviornmental conference and agreements. Representative from all over the world select in a specific city. Of course they gather and talk about what people can do to improve our enviornmental situation. However I heard from kbs new about one or two years ago~ Because of the conference quite a lot amount of CO2 has released. It was really interesting and contradictory. And it also mean something. I think we should lessen our conferences because (I am not sure but) I personally think it is less worth it. I mean the result or how well people practice the promise does not correspond. And is there no way to do through internet?? What can we do to make up for the weak points??
-------------------------------
Gwangju to Host UN Environment Forum in 2011
By Do Je-hae
Staff Reporter
The southwestern city of Gwangju will work side by side with San Francisco in the United States to host a U.N. conference on environmental issues in 2011.
The event will coincide with the 2011 Gwangju World Environment Expo.
The Gwangju City administration announced Sunday that it will sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with its San Francisco counterparts to organize the conference to discuss developments of the U.N. Urban Environmental Accord.
The organizers will invite 107 cities from around the world to discuss pressing urban environmental concerns.
After the signing of the MOU, Gwangju officials will begin preparations for the event by constructing networks with the 107 cities to be invited and asking for their participation.
In addition, Gwangju will work in cooperation with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to solicit participation of leaders in environment protection such as Guangzhou in China and San Antonio, Texas, in the United States.
Established in 2005, the U.N. Urban Environmental Accord was signed by 59 cities including San Francisco, London, Moscow and Gwangju, and represents their resolute commitment to sustainable environmental protection.
-------------
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/05/116_45055.html
1. Mikah Lee
ReplyDelete2. Sunlight control, reducing your electricity bills
3. (Sorry for the late post.. I typed it up on Saturday but for some reason it didn't post?? Also I can't seem to copy & paste into this box here anymore...)
I find it interesting that this article refers to home generated power and electric cars as "a long way off" when both are entirely possible today. I guess that's insufficient marketing for you. But anyway:
I've only ever thought of cars as the biggest contributors to global warming, but I guess I just never thought about our houses. I'm a huge air conditing-user myself, and I know I should just go back to old-fashioned fans, but I absolutely hate being in a stuffy room where hot air is only being circulated by a bunch of fans. I never considered 'sunlight control'.
It all depends on the windows, of course. They get sunlight in, but unfortunately they let heat out as well, which is fine in the summers but not very efficient during the winter. Luckily it is now pretty easy to find some very nice insulating shades that are even supported by the government (which makes everything a lot easier to get).
Once it starts getting hot in Seoul, I'm going to start closing the curtains all day, even if that does make the house a bit gloomy. It beats having to turn on the air conditioner 24/7.
------------------------------------------------
SIMPLE, PASSIVE, SOLAR ENERGY (YOUR WINDOWS). May 14, 2009 – Vol.14 No.8
by Bruce Mulliken, Green Energy News
Lofty goals. That seems to be the direction the green movement is headed at the moment. Plug-in cars for all. Solar panels on every roof. A wind turbine in every back yard. It’s good to have dreams. Lofty goals are great. Reaching for the sky lifts the spirits.
Reality says that electric cars and home generated power for all are a long way off for most of us.
That’s OK. though. Doing the best with available tools can be an equally rewarding goal. It’s fun to be clever, to beat the system, with what you have, with what’s available now.
Take solar energy. Everyone is exposed to it. We use it every day. Everyone can use solar as a practical energy source as well as save energy by controlling it to meet our needs. Surprisingly, tapping solar energy probably requires the least investment of any renewable energy source and it doesn’t require installing semiconductors on the roof. It requires opening and closing wind blinds, shades, curtains or shutters to let sunlight in when we need it and keep it out when we don’t.
Sunlight streams in the windows of our homes warming everything it touches: the floor, the furniture, the cat in the sunny spot. In turn, the floor and furniture release that thermal energy into the air, heating us even when we’re not sitting directly in the light. On a cold winter day the warmth of the sun keeps a house warm and cuts energy bills. On a hot summer day that same warm sunlight-drenched room can cause the air conditioner to run more often, using up energy, adding to greenhouse gas emissions and adding to the electric bill.
Houses – which are responsible for more global warming emissions than cars (because they “run” 24 hours a day) – can easily be tamed energy wise, and in these slow economic times save considerable money.
I broke the addiction to central air conditioning a few years ago by going cold turkey, no longer using it, shutting it down. My summertime utility bill, which includes electricity as well as natural gas for heat and hot water, has dropped from more than $200 a month in the summer, to around $50, and that’s living in Baltimore, Maryland where summers are anything but cool. Fans and one small window air conditioning unit help keep the solid masonry, brick oven house comfortable. I attribute much of the energy savings to keeping sunlight out with the use of window blinds. True, the house is a little dark on bright sunny days but it’s only for a few months and the savings are worth it, for me and the environment.
Not only is sunlight control the least expensive renewable energy you can buy, the government will now help you do it by helping financially to make your windows more efficient. Windows, of course, not only let sunlight in, but being the least insulated part of a home let heat out, which we don’t want either.
At least one window treatment company, EcoSmart Insulating Shades, says one of its product lines, its Sidetrack Insulation System, is certified for a federal tax credit in 2009 and 2010. Owners of existing homes can earn a tax credit up to $1500 by installing the ComforTrack Energy Saving Sidetrack Insulating System this year or next.
The Sidetrack Insulation System features insulating honeycomb fabric with an integrated sidetrack system that seals off the gaps between the shades and the window to create a solid insulating barrier to drafts. Further, using light-blocking window shades with this simple system, sunlight can be blocked as well.
The tax credit is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Stimulus package. Under section 25C of the Internal Revenue Code, homeowners can now receive a 30 percent credit on the cost of qualified energy efficiency improvements. Tax credits are available for many types of home improvements. You can spend it all on one improvement or divide it through other qualifying improvements.
EcoSmart builds its shades in their factory in Essex Junction, Vermont. Every shade is hand signed by its craftsperson, actually a green job.
Using something as simple as a window covering to control sunlight infiltration and heat loss is no less important than mounting solar electric panels on a roof. And it’s considerably less expensive, especially with a break from Uncle Sam.
--------
http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2009/20090039.html
1. Daniel Cheng
ReplyDelete2. China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants.
3. Right from the middle of the article, I think this sums it up very well: “We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”
From the article, it is easy to deduce that China still has problems with emission control. This is obvious, and China is notorious for having the most coal plants in the world. It is great that China has upped the emission standards, and not only that, but it is also great that China is utilizing the new technology as much as they can, despite the U.S. still being in the preliminary stages of approving it for the existing plants.
I like this statistic: "In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs."
40 percent efficiency is horrible, and like Professor Whitaker's example of the amount of energy lost through power lines (enough to light up the ceiling lights in our classroom that the artist used), it is a ubiquitous phenomenon around the world. I have yet to read an article that states that, yes, so and so country or city is the most energy efficient in the world, not only because they use environmentally friendly means of creating energy, but also maximizing the means of retaining it. Imagine if China filled that gap? The world would be a much safer place!
I think this article is one of the best I've read on China (also comparing with the US) in the past year. It shows a lot of progress for both countries.
The last paragraph of the article does a great summary of the progress of both countries.
--------------------------------
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: May 10, 2009
TIANJIN, China — China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.
Doug Kanter for The New York Times
The Tianjin plant will be constructed in what is now a muddy field.
But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.
While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.
Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.
“The steps they’ve taken are probably as fast and as serious as anywhere in power-generation history,” said Hal Harvey, president of ClimateWorks, a group in San Francisco that helps finance projects to limit global warming.
Western countries continue to rely heavily on coal-fired power plants built decades ago with outdated, inefficient technology that burn a lot of coal and emit considerable amounts of carbon dioxide. China has begun requiring power companies to retire an older, more polluting power plant for each new one they build.
Cao Peixi, the president of the China Huaneng Group, the country’s biggest state-owned electric utility and the majority partner in the joint venture building the Tianjin plant, said his company was committed to the project even though it would cost more than conventional plants.
“We shouldn’t look at this project from a purely financial perspective,” he said. “It represents the future.”
Without doubt, China’s coal-fired power sector still has many problems, and global warming gases from the country are expected to continue increasing. China’s aim is to use the newest technologies to limit the rate of increase.
Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.
Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.
With greater efficiency, a power plant burns less coal and emits less carbon dioxide for each unit of electricity it generates. Experts say the least efficient plants in China today convert 27 to 36 percent of the energy in coal into electricity. The most efficient plants achieve an efficiency as high as 44 percent, meaning they can cut global warming emissions by more than a third compared with the weakest plants.
In the United States, the most efficient plants achieve around 40 percent efficiency, because they do not use the highest steam temperatures being adopted in China. The average efficiency of American coal-fired plants is still higher than the average efficiency of Chinese power plants, because China built so many inefficient plants over the past decade. But China is rapidly closing the gap by using some of the world’s most advanced designs.
After relying until recently on older technology, “China has since become the major world market for advanced coal-fired power plants with high-specification emission control systems,” the International Energy Agency said in a report on April 20.
China’s improvements are starting to have an effect on climate models. In its latest annual report last November, the I.E.A. cut its forecast of the annual increase in Chinese emissions of global warming gases, to 3 percent from 3.2 percent, in response to technological gains, particularly in the coal sector, even as the agency raised slightly its forecast for Chinese economic growth. “It’s definitely changing the baseline, and that’s being taken into account,” said Jonathan Sinton, a China specialist at the energy agency.
But by continuing to rely heavily on coal, which supplies 80 percent of its electricity, China ensures that it will keep emitting a lot of carbon dioxide; even an efficient coal-fired power plant emits twice the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fired plant.
Perhaps the biggest question now is how much further China can go beyond the recent steps. In particular, how fast will it move toward power plants that capture their emissions and store them underground or under the seafloor?
That technology could, in theory, create power plants that contribute virtually nothing to global warming. Many countries hope to develop such plants, though progress has been halting; Energy Secretary Chu has promised steps to speed up the technology in the United States.
China has just built a small, experimental facility near Beijing to remove carbon dioxide from power station emissions and use it to provide carbonation for beverages, and the government has a short list of possible locations for a large experiment to capture and store carbon dioxide. But so far, it has no plans to make this a national policy.
China is making other efforts to reduce its global warming emissions. It has doubled its total wind energy capacity in each of the past four years, and is poised to pass the United States as soon as this year as the world’s largest market for wind power equipment. China is building considerably more nuclear power plants than the rest of the world combined, and these do not emit carbon dioxide after they are built.
But coal remains the cheapest energy source in China by a wide margin. China has the world’s third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia.
“No matter how much renewable or nuclear is in the mix, coal will remain the dominant power source,” said Ashok Bhargava, a China energy expert at the Asian Development Bank in Manila.
Another problem is that China has finally developed the ability to build high-technology power plants only at the end of a national binge of building lower-tech coal-fired plants. Construction is now slowing because of the economic slump.
By adopting “ultra-supercritical” technology, which uses extremely hot steam to achieve the highest efficiency, and by building many identical power plants at the same time, China has cut costs dramatically through economies of scale. It now can cost a third less to build an ultra-supercritical power plant in China than to build a less efficient coal-fired plant in the United States.
-------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html?_r=1&ref=science
1. Daniel Cheng
ReplyDelete2. U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles
3. I forgot to post last week, so I'm doing two for this week.
Going with the "Who Killed the Electric Car" flow, this article clearly demonstrates the difference between the current presidential administration and the past one. Even though we all know that the cleanest technology exists and we are not using it, it is definitely still progress for the U.S. by raising emission standards.
"Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition."
The article says that Obama's plan will tighten emission standards almost to California's standards. Not only that, but also "The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said."
The article also says that it wants to put this act in place before GM makes a decision to file for bankruptcy. Chryslar has already filed, which means that it will be protected in regards to its future models.
All in all, I think this is a great push for the nation and California. It seems that everyone benefits in some form or another. Maybe except the oil giants. Also, it's good that Obama is implementing this within just 4 months of his inauguration into office. It helps define his character more.
------------------------------
By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: May 18, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama will announce tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions and mileage standards on Tuesday,embracing rules that California has sought to enact for years over the objections of the auto industry and the Bush administration.
The rules, which will begin to take effect in 2012, will put in place a federal standard for fuel efficiency that is as tough as the California program, while imposing the first-ever limits on climate-altering gases from cars and trucks.
The effect will be a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.
Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.
Yet the industry position represents an abrupt about-face after years of battling tougher mileage standards in the courts and in Congress, reflecting the change in the political climate and the industry’s shaky financial condition. The decision comes as General Motors and Chrysler are receiving billions of dollars in federal help, closing hundreds of dealerships and trying to design the products and business strategy they will need to survive.
“For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos,” said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, the industry’s largest trade association. “President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program.”
Mr. McCurdy, a former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, has been working with Mr. Obama and his advisers on the issue since early this year.
In announcing the new program at the White House, Mr. Obama will be accompanied by Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, along with auto industry executives and environmental leaders.
The administration’s decision resolves a question over California’s application for a waiver from federal clean air laws to impose its own, tougher vehicle emissions standards. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have said they plan to adopt the California program.
The new national fleet mileage rule for cars and light trucks of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 roughly corresponds to the California requirement, which will be shelved as a result. The current national standard is slightly more than 25 miles per gallon.
The California plan, first proposed in 2002, had been stalled by industry lawsuits and the Bush administration’s refusal to grant a waiver from less stringent federal rules, although California has been given dozens of such exemptions over the last 40 years.
The program will also end a number of lawsuits over the California standards, officials said.
“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, who has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards for two decades with the goal of curbing the gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
The administration had faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to put its emissions rules into effect. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he was also trying to find a way to rescue American auto companies from their financial crisis.
One ranking industry official said that the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors made a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of this month. The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.
To meet the new federal standards, auto companies will have to drastically change their product lineups in a relatively short time.
The companies have declined so far to comment on the costs involved in meeting a fleet standard of 35 miles a gallon. For starters, the automakers will probably have to sharply reduce the number of low-mileage models, like pickup trucks and large sedans.
The president’s decision will also accelerate the development of smaller cars and engines already under way.
But Mr. McCurdy said the industry could meet the new mileage targets using existing technology and improvements in future models. He said that 130 models already got 30 miles a gallon or better on the highway.
In January, Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. He also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to complement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020. The Bush administration wrote no regulations to enforce the 2007 law.
Mr. Obama will direct the E.P.A. and the Transportation Department to jointly write enforcement regulations.
Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expired.
He also said the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a “harmonization” of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.
Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. He co-sponsored two bills in 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, one to raise fuel economy standards and the other to encourage the use of alternative fuels.
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and improve their vehicles’ efficiency.
“The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out,” Mr. Obama said.
That inaction has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines.
Fran Pavley, the California state senator who sponsored the legislation that established the California standard, praised the decision as she traveled to Washington Monday to join the White House meeting on Tuesday.
She said through a spokeswoman that California would work on its own rules while the federal regulations were drafted. “This cleans up our air, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and continues to allow California to lead the way,” she said.
Micheline Maynard and Bill Vlasic contributed reporting.
----------
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19emissions.html?pagewanted=all