|
The Week in Pictures: Oil Rigs on Fire, Paris Hilton's Doghouse, Mount Kilimanjaro, and More (Slideshow)
From the 35-mile long volcanic rift in the Ethiopian desert that has been confirmed as the beginning of a new sea to the news that oil continues to gush into the Timor Sea--at an estimated rate of somewhere between 400 and 2,000 barrels per day--from an oil rig off the NW coast of Australia, a lot happened this week in green. We took a tour of Paris Hilton's $325,000 dog mansion--complete with air-conditioning and designer furniture--and saw spooky photos of Readers' Green Halloweens. Find out what else happened in the world of green this week in our photo roundup of most popular, most important, and most oddball stories.
Read the full story on TreeHugger
Mavizen's 130 MPH TTX02 Electric Motorcycle Runs on Linux
Why did you stop? Well, I was recompiling my kernel and got a segfault...
Mavizen has decided to offer a new electric bike based on the previous winner of the TTXGP so that other teams can have a solid foundation to build on for next year. The TTX02 is based on the KTM RC8 with a Agni powerplant. The twist is that t...Read the full story on TreeHugger
Walking: An Equal-Opportunity Answer to Traffic Congestion, From New York to New Delhi
Crossing the street in Delhi can be a tricky proposition. Photo by [Satbir] via Flickr.
With just 139 cars for every 1,000 residents -- compared to 209 in New York City, and a whopping 765 in the United States as a whole -- many parts of Istanbul are already clogged with traffic. More residents name congestion as a problem than any other concern -- although 80 percent of those without a car say they...Read the full story on TreeHugger
Pesticide-Soaked 'Wallpaper' Cuts Malaria Exposure, Safer Than Spraying
 Mosquito on the wall. Image credit:DesertUSA.
To lower mosquito exposure in malaria-prone places there are two basic pesticide use strategies. The half-century old approach - a remnant of 1950's era thinking - is to spray entire towns, as well as the surrounding countryside, with a pesticide such as DDT or pyrethrin.
Washingon DC-area Think tanks seem enamored of those spray-glory days, in spite of the fact that it would be a logistical impossibility and far too costly to repeat the Bald Eagle extirpating performance for the many thousands of poor ...Read the full story on TreeHugger
|
|
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
by Jonathan Hiskes
So how did Cash for Clunkers work out from an environmental standpoint? You don’t want to know.
The $3 billion federal program was kinda sorta supposed to send inefficient, high-polluting, belchy vehicles to an early grave. Instead it put a lot of new large, inefficient vehicles on the road, according to an AP investigation of new government records.
The most common deals swapped old Ford or Chevrolet pickup trucks for new pickups that got “only marginally better gas mileage,” the analysis found. Old Ford F-150 for new Ford F-150 was the most common exchange. Buyers were 17 times more likely to purchase an F-150 (rated at 16 miles per gallon) than a hybrid Toyota Prius.
At least 15 owners of large pickups cashed them in for new Hummer H3 SUVs that get only 16 mpg. Excuse me, but why did the government even send claims forms to Hummer dealerships? Government officials are "investigating" out how these deals squeaked through, the AP reports.
About 1 in 7 of all deals went for vehicles that got 20 mpg or worse. If you think about it, though, 20 mpg really isn’t such a bad rate ... for 1979.
There were plenty of signals before the one-month summer program began that it was a poor method for cutting pollution (note our roundup of early warnings). There’s also a lively debate on whether it made sense as economic stimulus.
"If we're looking for the environmental story here, we're going to be disappointed," Jeremy Anwyl, of analyst firm Edmunds.com, told the AP. "It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy."
That pretty much nails it.
Related Links:
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee
Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee
by Agence France-Presse
WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats on Thursday pushed through a sweeping climate change bill, maneuvering an end-run around opposition Republicans who continued their boycott of deliberations.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Kerry-Boxer bill by a vote of 11 to 1, with the seven Republicans on the committee absent from the discussion and vote.
The panel is among five other Senate committees which also will weigh in with their draft bills on slowing the pace of climate change before a bill receives a vote in the full chamber, possibly next year.
"We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott we have been able to move this bill forward," said committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) after the vote.
Republicans, who boycotted the deliberations for three consecutive days, said they would oppose the bill until they had a "comprehensive analysis" of the economic impact of the legislation from the Environmental Protection Agency.
But Boxer said further analysis by the agency was not necessary, and maintained that the EPA's environmental impact assessment of a similar bill approved in June by the House of Representatives was sufficient. "We found that, after questioning the EPA extensively, that the Republicans' demand for another EPA analysis now would be duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars," she said.
Committee rules require the presence of at least two members of the minority party, but Boxer sidestepped the boycott using parliamentary procedures that allowed her to pass the bill by a simple majority of members present, a tactic Republicans decried as a "nuclear option."
At a press conference earlier this week, she signaled the tactical maneuver ahead.
"What they're doing is highly unusual. And what we're doing in response is highly unusual," she said, adding that her actions were completely "by the Senate rules."
Meanwhile, the lone Republican at Thursday's vote, ranking committee member James Inhofe (Okla.), in a two-minute declaration said his party's position had not changed. "We still are asking for the same thing," he said.
Republicans also criticized the Democrats' bill as doing too little to promote nuclear energy and said it's likely to lead to a spike in energy prices.
One Democrat, centrist senator Max Baucus (Mont.), who serves as chair of the Senate Finance Committee, broke with his party as the lone Democrat to vote against the bill, saying that its goals for reducing greenhouse emission levels were too ambitious.
The Senate legislation faces a long and contentious process ahead, and must be reconciled with a House bill that calls for cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83 percent by 2050. The Senate's bill calls for a 20 percent cut by 2020.
Both bills would create a cap-and-trade regime, aimed at setting the total level of domestic emissions allowable and then allocating quotas to companies. Firms that emit less than their quota would be allowed to sell their surplus allocation to others that exceed theirs. Those in excess could also face fines.
Related Links:
The ‘party of no’ becomes the ‘party of slow’
The Climate Post: The gods must be crazy
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Europe places outcome of Copenhagen squarely on Obama
by Brendan DeMelle
The chief negotiator for the European Commission announced this afternoon in Barcelona that the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation before December has doomed the chances for success in Copenhagen.
A climate protest at the Barcelona talks: World leaders with \'big heads\' moving cash from an aid money box to a climate money box. The stunt highlights rich country plans to use overseas aid money to pay for their climate finance commitments.Oxfam InternationalEurope now predicts that a legally binding treaty is impossible to expect in Copenhagen, and that it could take up to a full year beyond the global summit this December in order to reach a binding deal.
Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Commission, told reporters today that, “It was highly desirable to have the [U.S.] numbers on the table in Copenhagen. There’s no doubt.”
Runge-Metzger confirmed that any chance of rescuing a deal in Copenhagen “depends then very much on President Obama himself, on how confident he feels [about] how far the process has moved forward, whether he can also put numbers on the table or not.”
“Everybody sees political realities particularly in Washington and we know that the process there is slowing down politically,” he said. “So we need to be flexible. We cannot say that Copenhagen is the end.”
When asked whether Europe expected more rapid change from the Obama administration after eight years of Bush, Runge-Metzger said, “I have never expected the U.S. [position] changing totally. The interests in the different states are still the same as they were 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago.”
“The reduction targets is really what, politically, is the most difficult issue, and certainly not something that is going to be decided by senior officials in a normal negotiation round. For that you will need to have ministerial blessing or heads of state coming together. We would hope that we can finalize that in Copenhagen,” Runge-Metzger said.
Runge-Metzger confirmed that, regarless of what transpires in Copenhagen, the E.U. plans to move forward with the implementation of policies to reduce European greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
That target is far lower than the 40 percent or more reduction demanded by Africa and the G-77 developing nations.
“Their [African and G-77] demands on developed countries to make deep emissions cuts, I don’t think that this gulf will be closed in the next week,” Runge-Metzger said.
Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China block, confirmed Thursday that Africa and the G-77 remain steadfast in their position that a so-called “politically binding agreement” is an unacceptable result in Copenhagen.
“We are totally against that,” he told me in the hallway of the Barcelona convention shortly after the G-77 cancelled its daily press conference in what Lumumba described as an “unfortunate” move based on a “joint decision” by the G-77 not to speak with the press at present.
If a legally binding agreement cannot emerge from Copenhagen, then “we resolve to continue the negotiations in the future,” Lumumba said.
But Africa and the G-77 developing countries refuse to entertain anything less than a legally binding treaty. The African and G-77 delegations want a treaty that commits developed nations to reduce emissions by 40 percent or more below 1990 levels by the year 2020, a level which Africa feels is necessary to avoid death and destruction in vulnerable areas.
With the news that all bets are off on reaching a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen, delegates and observers in Spain are left wondering what could have been if the U.S. had acted sooner domestically. The U.S. Congress has failed the world, and developing nations will pay a steep price unless President Obama can personally rescue the Copenhagen talks.
That will depend on whether he even shows up in Denmark in December. Sorry Africa, don't hold your breath.
Related Links:
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee
Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen
Why developing countries cannot afford failure in Copenhagen
by Brendan DeMelle
The African delegation insisted today in Barcelona that its decision to walk out on negotiations Tuesday was necessary in order to jolt the intransigent European Union and other developed nations to move forward with serious discussions, rather than obstruct progress by bringing only lofty rhetoric and no numbers to the negotiating table. The plan seems to have worked, albeit temporarily, as negotiations resumed today about how to extend the Kyoto Protocol and forge binding agreements with the West to slash emissions and provide cash to developing nations to deal with climate shocks and facilitate clean economic development.
However, delegates from developing nations and climate campaign groups continue to report that progress has been too slow in Barcelona, setting the stage for inevitable failure in Copenhagen. Activist groups and developing world negotiators continue to press the West to pick up the pace immediately or risk failing to reach a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen next month.
Europe renewed its non-specific posturing today, at first suggesting that developed countries could still bring promises, if not numbers, to Copenhagen, but ultimately confirming that the Europe Union--and the U.S.--have no intention of entering a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen unless rapidly developing nations like China, India, and Brazil are also required to cut emissions and contribute funding to help poor nations survive as the climate deteriorates.
Copenhagen is the pinnacle in a series of negotiations stretching back two years over how to create a legally binding agreement that brings the United States into the fold on the international response to climate change, and simultaneously craft the next round of targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Since the U.S. failed to join the 1997 global treaty, negotiations have proceeded under these two tracks to ensure that work can continue on emissions reductions among Kyoto signatories, while the world grapples with how to hold the U.S. accountable internationally both on greenhouse-gas reductions and financial commitments to assist developing nations.
Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China bloc, challenged Europe and the industrialized world to get serious again Wednesday in order to move the fragile talks forward.
Lumumba, whose ability to articulate the urgency and necessity of the developing world’s pleas for action on climate change is unrivaled by any other delegate present at the talks, made clear once again today that the West must bring science-based targets and an indelible ink pen to the Copenhagen negotiation table, or else Africa, low-lying island nations, and indigenous peoples--the populations most vulnerable to climate change--will rapidly face death and economic ruin as the atmosphere cooks and sea levels rise.
In the G-77 press conference this afternoon, I asked Lumumba whether he was concerned by the potential domino effect of additional developed countries adopting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen’s position, reported by Reuters on Monday, that a “politically binding agreement” is more likely to emerge in Copenhagen rather than a legally binding agreement. The “politically binding” sentiment seems poised to snowball among other major industrialized nations, in spirit if not yet in the same exact words.
Lumumba, in his typically graceful fashion, calmly but sternly replied to my question stating, “I do not know of anything called a politically binding agreement. If there is anything that you know about politics and political manifestos is that they are worth very little. Tell me of any politician who delivered on his political manifesto. Is it Gordon Brown [UK]? Is it Kevin Rudd [Australia]?”
False promises of politically binding commitment without legally binding teeth will not be worth a damn to Africa and the rest of the vulnerable developing countries. As soon as one world leader from the West who signs onto such a wishy-washy agreement loses power, and their successor refuses to comply with such a non-binding agreement--an entirely possible scenario since there is no legal basis to follow through on such a commitment--the whole process would fail. Climate change would continue to punish the developing world, which would face many more years of delay while the negotiators reconvened to start over.
So only a legally binding agreement is acceptable in Copenhagen, or Africa and other vulnerable populations are doomed to death and destruction, Lumumba told me.
“What can we achieve in Barcelona? This is what we are asking developed countries. You have to live up to the ambition that saves the world. In Africa’s words, it is 40 [percent emissions reductions by 2020] minimum. Anything south of 40 means that Africa’s population, Africa’s land mass is offered destruction as the only alternative to choose from. And I think you can logically understand why the African states are very angry about that,” he said.
Yes we can, Mr. Lumumba. Yes we can.
Watch the G-77 press conference here. (I ask my question at the 8:15-9 minute mark and Lumumba responds beginning at the 16 minute mark)
Curious to hear the European response to the G-77’s clear call for a legally binding agreement, later today I asked the E.U. delegation to explain specifically what time frame would be acceptable to set legally binding targets if Copenhagen fails to produce solid results and instead ends with such a politically binding (i.e. hollow) agreement, or worse still, no agreement.
It was the last question the E.U. delegation took from the press today, and provides all the clarity that Africa and the developing countries can expect from the industrialized world for now.
Artur Runge-Metzger, the chief negotiator for the European Commission, sitting next to the nodding Swedish delegate (Sweden currently holds the E.U. presidency), responded simply, “It should be as quickly as possible after Copenhagen.” (Full stop, microphones cut, end of press conference.*)
In contrast to the developing world’s clear, specific position, the E.U. seems to act as if these negotiations just started, as if talks haven’t been going on for years since Kyoto. Europe seems to project the image that it is suddenly being asked to answer this fundamental question.
In reality, Europe and the rest of the developed world have had more than ample time over the past decade to develop a clear position. But when pressed on specifics now, just weeks before the world expects a concrete treaty, they are still flailing around like fish out of water.
Much work remains to be done, and 99 percent of the burden rests on the E.U. and U.S. to show the rest of the world they understand the severe implications of any further delay in responding to the climate crisis. The anger from Africa and the rest of the developing world will continue to grow, as will the carbon emissions responsible for climate change.
Europe and the U.S. must stand up and be counted.
*The E.U. press conference is not online yet, but will be here tomorrow.
Related Links:
The Climate Post: The gods must be crazy
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee
|
