The EPA has denied California the right to enact its own greenhouse gas emissions regulations for automobiles. EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson said: “The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution — not a confusing patchwork of state rules — to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles.” But calling it a “patchwork” is misleading since at present, there are only two options for other states when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions standards: stick with the EPA’s or copy California’s.
Yesterday, the European Union came out with its final proposals for cleaning up the continent’s cars. This from The Economist:
At present Europe’s cars emit an average of about 160 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km). There has been some reduction since carmakers were last threatened with legislation a decade ago, but progress has been painfully slow—about 1.5% a year rather than the 3% needed to meet the voluntary target of 140g/km by 2008 that the industry agreed to a few years ago. The commission is therefore insisting that by 2012, the fleet-average emissions from new cars sold in the EU must not exceed 130g/km, with another 10g/km reduction coming from other sources, such as low rolling-resistance tyres, more efficient air-conditioning and greater use of biofuels.
Mercedes-Benz and BMW aren’t taking the news very well.
The Guardian (London) has a piece on ethical living in which the paper exposes carbon myths. For example:
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.
Also from The Guardian and related to air quality is news that cannabis smokers are exposed to more toxic chemicals in each puff than cigarette smokers. If you’re wondering who partook in testing the weed, the answer is no one. Scientists set up machines to”smoke” the plants and collect the fumes.
In tests, directly inhaled cannabis smoke contained 20 times more ammonia than cigarette smoke, five times more hydrogen cyanide and five times the concentration of nitrogen oxides, which affect circulation and the immune system.
And in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom is trying to make the Bay Area a more livable place. He’s not cleaning up the air — rather, he’s proposed charging big stores a fee when they sell sugar-sweet soda.
This article appears in Inside Out.
On the hybrid cars myth: They are great pieces of technology, and work well in many applications, but in my view they have often distracted us from an approach that is more effective at reducing emissions and offers many other benefits: moving away from the single-owner single-occupant automobile model, and focusing on mobility management and land use solutions.
Check out my column on “hybrid hype” for why other solutions like biking, walking, Flexcar, and transit (which incorporate hybrid technologies) offer more compelling solutions in many cases:
http://www.green-wheels.org/hybridhype
I could go on for quite a while, but I think what I should do is start to record some of my thoughts and links and excerpts from relevant studies I’ve noticed in the Green Wheels blog (www.green-wheels.org/blog).
Aaron, what’s your take on mass transit for the north coast? It would be nice to live near where you work, but with so few job options, and housing so expensive, that’s not feasible for most people. I hear a lot about building a trail in the media, but nothing about moving large groups of people around efficiently. Do you think buses are the solution, not some form of light rail?
Dear Anonymous,
Green Wheels has been aggressive and outspoken about improving transit in Humboldt County. That’s why we created Jack Pass, which has ridership up 30% and has resulted in new trips.
Next, we are strongly advocating for bus rapid transit strategies to be implemented in our area. You can read more on BRT here:
http://www.green-wheels.org/brt
Light rail is simply not viable with our low populations. Plus, BRT would offer many advantages light rail can’t match at lower cost.
We are working in the General Plan process for transit oriented development, and speaking out for improving areas that are already developed with regard to transit and walkability.
More on the General Plan here:
http://www.green-wheels.org/generalplan
By the way, Anonymous, who are you? It’s much nicer to correspond with people of known identity!
You can call me Cap.
I could go for buses, if as you say, the wait a minimum and the pick-up/drop-off points are convenient. Two things I’d want:
1) A computer terminal that gives me access to a Google Maps-style itinerary for getting from point A to point B, and will print it out for me.
Save common routes on my bus card account so I can just slide my card and pick from a list of commonly used destinations to quickly review arrival times.
2) Widen Highway 101 between Eureka and McKinleyville with a bus lane and increase the speed limit for the bus. Let the bus cruise along at 70 while responsibly handling the intersections. That, more than anything, would make an impact on peoples’ minds about bus transit being faster and better.