New Energy Bill

      Environmental issues continue to find attention in politics. Last week, the Senate passed an energy bill that called for the first increase in automobile efficiency in 32 years. Cars, small trucks, and SUVs would need to run 35 miles/gallon. Intended to be a step forward in the fight against global warming, the bill proposed an increase in the use of ethanol, predicting the use of 36 gallons a year by 2020. Finally, it called for an increase in the efficiency of appliances and lighting.

     Such a decision could hurt profits of auto companies which have strongly opposed any increase for the past few decades. Even though the technology to make these changes is available, the new taxes on automaking companies would hurt the large profits they’ve been building up.

     However, these measure could save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day (by 2020). A reduction of greenhouse gases by 20 million tons has been predicted. Finally, consumers would save money on fuel. The bill is now at the House, and a vote is expected within the week, though Bush says he will veto if the oil industry taxes are not removed. According to Sen. Daniel Inouye, the bill “demonstrates to the world that America is a leader in fighting global warming.” Considering how much we’ve contributed to global warming, I’d say it’s about time for some of these changes.

Sources:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-congress-energy,0,438578.story

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071201/lawmakers-reach-gas-mileage-boost-deal_1.htm

The Hybrid Debate

     The documentary “Future Cars” demonstrated how beneficial hybrid cars can be to the environment. Besides their appealing design and easy operation, these cars promised pollution reduction and less money spent on fuel. However, many still question if switching to a hybrid is really worthwhile.          

     The process of actually creating these hybrid vehicles takes a great deal of energy. Typically, more complicated systems require more energy, and hybrids tend to be more complex internally than conventional cars. Additionally, hybrids tend to break down easier, and the disposal of old hybrid cars is more difficult with the issue of getting rid of the battery. The batteries themselves, if not disposed of properly, can have their own affects on the environment.

     On the positive side, studies from the “Green Car Club” show that a hybrid reduces tailpipe emissions by 90% and almost completely eliminates evaporative emissions. Still, they do contribute to greenhouse gas emissions because they are powered by a petroleum -based fuel

     Although it would be nice to think that consumers would make their transportation choices based on environmental impact, cost will probably remain the number one factor. A hybrid would mean less money spent on gasoline, but to make up for the initial cost difference, one would probably need to drive the car for approximately 10 years.

     Right now, the technology doesn’t seem to hold enough advantages to begin significantly replacing the cars we drive now. Even with reduced emissions, the amount of driving continues to increase. Utilizing public transportation is probably the easiest way to reduce transmissions though it is not a very popular option. Until hybrids are made to last as long as the cars we use now and make up for the cost difference, a significant change in consumer buying doesn’t seem likely.

SOURCES:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.html

http://www.thehybriddebate.com/blog/environment/2007/10/18/hidden-costs-hybrid-fleet/

http://whattheymissed.blogspot.com/2007/11/does-going-hybrid-save-enough-dollars.html

China’s Fight with Pollution

  

   China has taken significant steps in industrialization. While beneficial in ways, this also means more pollution. Many may not find the problem extremely urgent, but certain investment advisors have already recommended investing in Singapore rather than in Hong Kong where the pollution is especially bad.

    Agencies are working to find fresh methods of attacking this problem, though. In some places, this involves a serious “crackdown.” In the words of Chen Jian, the director of the Guangdong Energy Conservation & Monitoring Center, “The police use dogs to sniff drugs — we use our people to sniff pollution.” Basically, teams are being sent out to track down large quantities of harmful emissions.

     This is a new focus for China. For the past few decades, the country has centered on improving growth. According to the Chicago Tribune, though, China is expected to produce more greenhouse gases than even the United States this year. The threat of harmful gases to China’s economy along with the pressure of creating clean grounds for the upcoming Beijing  Olympics have created somewhat of a panic for China’s growing pollution problem.

     China’s goal is ambitious: a 10% cut in emissions by 2010. To do this, environmental programs are zeroing in on electrical power. Claiming it would be nearly impossible to cut consumption, companies aim for “a 20 percent cut in energy use per unit of national economic output by 2010.”

    Though these plans have the potential to greatly benefit the environment, China continues to increase its industry which may call for a greater demand of resources. China’s major concern is the economy and continual growth may cause severe problems. However, we cannot expect other industrializing countries to change their emissions output without considering how much our own nation contributes to the problem.

Sources: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-china_greisingsep24,0,2729905.story

http://usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3aframe=form&frontpage=1&