URGENT NEED FOR FORCEFULACTION, AND FALLACY OF OUR PAST CLIMATE NON COMPLIANCE

Our Nation's non compliance with the rest of the developed nations concerning global warming mitigation underscores the dangerous control that special interests have exercised over the Bush administration’s policies. Their distortions of scientific data typifies their unconscionable war on science. Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.

Special interests argue that the current warming trends follow historic warming cycles, and hence reflect natural weather patterns--but they omit obvious differences: The earlier warming trends developed at slower rates which permitted the ecosystems to adapt. Morever they resulted from temporary natural events, which allowed transitions back to normal temperature patterns--by contrast, the current warming patterns result from artificial causes that will only intensify unless mitigated.

By all indicators, global warming will self perpetuate as the melting ice sheets absorb rather than reflect heat, as the melting permafrost releases more CO2 & methane, and the list goes on. Inundation of low lying areas, spread of tropical diseases to temperate latitudes, sea life destruction from changing ocean chemistry, & currents, are only some potential consequences.

Often overlooked is the fact that, the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were no issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.

Contrary to right wing assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our rejection of Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution. With our participation in international efforts, China & India could no longer use our non-compliance as an excuse for their non-participation.

The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution can only worsen if we allow the same special interests to force the new administration away from the desperately needed environmental reforms and reversal of the current administration’s war against our planet.

If you have not already seen it, be sure to view the movie "Who killed the electric car?" It is very enlightning as you now see SF and GM touting how we should be using electric cars. We could have had them, actually did have them, years ago. Now we must wait several more years for the highly publicized Chevy Volt which actually sounds less advanced (except for the batteries) than the cars GM made and then crushed years ago.

The movie really makes you want to bailout GM ... not.

where is all this electricity going to come from?
more fossil fuels?

Electric cars need electrical charge to run. Most electrical charge is still produced by burning coal or natural gas in power plants. The exhausts from power plants contain probably less NO or NO2 than exhausts of my car but they still produce CO2 and, unfortunately, toxic CS2 from some coal fired units.

Electric cars will undoubtedly result in cleaner cities but will they reduce "global warming"? That will only be the case if an electric car produces less CO2 per mile than a standard combustion engine. I have not yet seen data which show that electric cars are "better" for global warming than gas-driven cars. It is even conceivable that electric cars are worse.

The fact that most power plants are in the countryside means nothing. Their CO2 still goes into the atmosphere.

Electric cars may only become superior when most electricity is generated without the production of CO2. In the meantime, please spare me any misleading statements that electric cars will reduce "global warming". Show me the data, the facts!

I think they better figure out how to get their mass transit out of hock and how to pay their bills befiore starting any more grand plans.

Very pertinent comments above on electric cars and electricity. The last time I saw results on total effect, it was negative. That was 5 years ago however.

PUSH!! And don't stop!

Transportation for America
http://t4america.org/blog/archives/539

Rebuild local, public, for our childrens childrens childrens childrens....

Yes, the Bay Area could definitely use some massive wind farms. And it would help local economy too, especially if the advancement of technology was done by local businesses. Without renewable energy sources electric cars are a sham. Oh, and the Bay Area could use a mass transit system that actually went places. BART is a good start. It's been known for a long time that trains are the most economical way to move large numbers of people.

Argentina runs it's cars on methane, natural gas from land fills and flatulent cows. I doubt any battery will last very long on Winter days with the heater on. A small battery to help with acceleration and dynamic braking might be much quicker and cheaper.

The carbon footprint of electric vehicles depends very much on the energy source of the electricity. It is likely that even with coal-generated electricity that the footprint is lower with electric vehicle due to the notorious inefficiency of the internal combustion engine versus electric motor.

In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, if PG&E electricity is to be used, only 2% is derived from coal. About 54% is zero-low carbon footprint (i.e., renewable, hydroelectric, nuclear). About 43% is natural gas, which has a lower carbon footprint than oil. So in this case, a significant carbon reduction, I think. I would hazard a guess of a factor of 5-10.

When I read "electric cars" in the headlines, boy, was I excited. I misread "electric cars" to mean mass transit, as in _electric trolley cars_, etc. Markley is on point. Only mass transit such as trolleys, monorails, BART-like systems are the most efficient in getting lots of people from Point A to Point B. Anything is else remains inefficient, wasteful, yet _profitable_ for the individual-auto makers in Detroit, an obsolete, polluting 20th century invention.
BART should add spurs into the City rather than just pass through downtown and on to points South and North to the suburbs. That would be progress. The density in the Bay Area, like that in Manhattan merits it. And interestingly enough, such mass transit would tend to discourage "suburbanization." Something the current freeway system encourages and subsidizes. And you get what you subsidize, including global warming.
Just another daydream, I suppose...

These no doubt expensive plug-in hybrids might be nice, but as someone who must, reluctantly, replace a 1988 Corolla when will I be able to get an ordinary inexpensive compact car that gets 40-60 mpg, which Europeans take for granted?

One of the great scandals is how the big three tell congress that a 45 mpg fleet average is science fiction, while their European factories are building exactly such cars.

And as far as electric vehicles, what we need is a inexpensive small basic electric vehicle for local urban/suburban use. Not that ridiculous-looking, big, expensive Chevy Volt.

But why do we need four wheels at all? Go to Rome and see how much of the population gets around. Chinese cities are full of electric motor scooters. Some electric motor scooters are available now here in the US, including the pricey $8,500 Vectrix, and cheap Chinese versions. I own two of these myself and after repairing all the deficiencies from their poor Chinese workmanship, learning some electronics, and upgrading them to lithium cells, they now serve as my transportation for 8 months of the year. But no one else seems to be catching on and they are probably still the only lithium powered electric vehicles in Pennsylvania.

But if we took a truly systemic approach for short-haul transportation, we would find that personal vehicles should not be necessary at all outside of rural or small-town areas We need to would abolish the suburban model an return to sane walkable/transit-friendly communities.

---USAn---

I hate to throw water on the party but how do electric cars make the world greener? The electricity they use must be produced somehow and most of it comes from burning oil and coal. So you are in effect just moving the pollution farther up the food chain. The only way this is green is if you make a huge investment in green electric generating capacity, i.e. wind, solar, hydro, geo-thermal. I do not see in the article where this is in the plan.

On a different note, My old coworker in Florida bought a Honda Prius hybrid a few years ago. He paid over $40k and it gets a little over 40mpg. I moved to the Philippines two years ago. I bought a surplus rebuilt Suzuki kei car. Think of it as a micro van. It's 3 cylinder 42hp engine gets over 50mpg. I paid right at $4000 for it. I think it is ridiculous that we see Detroit coming out with these fancy expensive high powered electric car ideas like the Volt. They could easily produce a cheap, low powered commuter vehicle. They just do not want to.

Don't worry about electricity. Just call Canada – Arnold did. He met with our Premier (Campbell) and was told BC can give you clean, affordable electricity. Great! All we have to do in BC is dam or divert the water in 700 of our small rivers all over the province. Give private corporations the leases on these rivers for 30 years, the Public Power System (BC Hydro which gives us the cheapest power in North America) will buy back this power at a guaranteed higher rate and sell it to YOU. Rivers are already being destroyed, transmission lines being built throughout the province leading to Victoria where a deep sea transmission line is being built to California. However BC citizens are being told it is because we need more power in BC and on Vancouver Island where Victoria is.

These projects are not green – they destroy the land, the salmon rearing streams
(of course we have fish farms – so no one gives a dam (pardon the pun) about wild salmon). Check out www.ourrivers.ca - watch the video and see how these rivers are being destroyed.

Arnold can begin to take some legitimate credit for green leadership...ONLY after he comes clean about the corrupt manner in which he "took power" in California.
Ask him to explain what went on in the secret meeting with Enron execs and others prior to the phony power crises that was used to justify the recall of Democratic Governor Gray Davis....Read the story here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/16902
Arnold...once he'd swiped the governorship...quickly paid back certain sponsors of his coup by canceling California's emission free vehicle mandate which allowed the auto makers to pull back and destroy their electric vehicles. What if Arnold would have forced the car makers to stick with the electric car plan 4 years ago? Might be that they'd be producing low cost electric cars at big profits for a nation and world ready for that kind of transportation technology.

The question has been asked by many as to how an EV can improve carbon emissions when "most of the electricity" comes from coal.

The first answer is that only about half of electric generation comes from coal. The rest comes from natural gas, Nuclear, hydro and renewables.

Also, ultimately, most electricity will come from renewables. It is unlikely that very much that motor fuel from renewable sources (ethanol biodiesel of such) can be produced at anything close to the the efficiency of wind or solar.

But is the carbon footprint of an EV smaller than a gasoline vehicle right now - with the current electricity generating mix? I own a couple small EV's - electric motor scooters equivalent to something between a 50-150CC scooter. For a one-month period in the summer of 07, I too exact energy consumption measurements using a "kill-a-watt meter" and maintained a mileage log.

At 3.00 per gallon gasoline the scooters got the equivalent of 290 miles per gallon in economic terms, and 390 miles per gallon in energy terms

The CO2 output per average kilowatt-hour of elctricity in the US is about 1.28 pounds. The CO2 output from a gallon of gasoline is about 19 pounds. The scooter uses .0925 kwh per mile, or about 0.12 pounds CO2 per mile. An equivalent gas scooter - Vespa or such - gets about 80 mpg, or 0.0125 gal/mile or about 0.24 pounds CO2 per mile. In other words, the electric scooter gets about 160 carbon-equivalent miles per gallon.

So, the electric vehicle produces half the CO2 emissions compared to a gasoline vehicle. But other factors not considered are all the energy inputs producing, refining and transporting the gasoline, so the comparison would be even better if these factors were considered

Late this summer, I upgraded the scooters to lithium-iron phosphate cells, which have higher charging efficiency compared to lead acid. So the figures should be better when I take more measurements in the spring.

To summarize, while not "zero emission" (nothing is) electric vehicles have less than half the carbon footprint of an equivalent IC engine vehicle.

---USAn---

Can ethanol clean up the air?

Without wanting to rain on anyone's parade...this idea should be implemented as soon as possible, however...with what money? Why wasn't this done years earlier?

I favor new ideas on how to run automobiles. I am glad there are some visionaries in charge here in San Francisco. My other reaction is: I have no car. I live in the City and have no intention of buying one. My goal for San Francisco is to make it pedestrian friendly. Yes, I like electric vehicles, but if I get hit by one of them crossing the street or running out of their way, it will still send me to the hospital. I am a bit tired of automobiles, and would like a PEDESTRIAN FIRST city. Car use should be discouraged.

Well lets hope they have the brains and lack of ego to check out the Swiss use of electric trams and any other European city that's been doing it for eons.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/portable-backyard-nuclear-reactors-ready-by-2013.php

I want this in my town.

Public transportation.

Argentina is contributing to global warming even as it recycles methane from cows for car fuel.
Better to go vegetarian and reduce the waste of water and land(crops etc) to feed a meat based diet.
Its common sense.

I know I know
humans arent good at common sense.

This is great news! And we need to work to dispell the myths around the electric car. It seems that the argument that an electric car will never go as far as a gas car was probably formed back in the 1970's and 1980's- and was used to great effect by the big automakers who did not want to change their tooling or give up their stranglehold on a gas/crack economy. But it's a whole new technological ball game now. In the old days- a normal electric motor with brushes was only 50-60% efficient. Now we have new brushless motors that are 95% efficient and not significantly more expensive. Also, batteries are different. Lithium has 20X more energy density then the old lead acid batteries that are still used to start your gasoline engine.

Soon we'll have some breakthroughs that will push an electric infrastructure to the forefront. Researchers have developed a new and simple anti reflective coating for solar panels- it allows them to absorb nearly 100% of the sunlight striking the solar panel's surface, as opposed to the current 50% loss due to sunlight being reflected away. Also- a new battery technology that can bring down the price of energy storage could hopefully be the wooden steak slashing through the Gas Vampire economie's heart. There's the possibility of 'super capacitor' batteries... much like the capacitor that holds and releases the charge for a camera flash... the goal with a super capacitor is to have a non chemical energy storage device that can store a high amount of energy and release it over a longer period of time. All these things are going to converge in part or in whole very soon... and clean electric transportation will be the way of tomorrow.

For further info, I suggest reading up on Alan Cocconi, especially his theories on a city wide plug in hybrid power grid.

Also, check out this car the Aptera Type 1. It's basically a 300mpg hybrid. Available soon in California for $30,000
http://www.aptera.com/details.php

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/06/15/japanese-car-runs-exclusively-on-water/

If everyone had an electric car we would need to triple our power generation capacity leading to more not less pollution.

Hydrogen cars that create their own fuel are one possible solution. The link above is simply a matter of engineering scale before it is on the road.

The US is perhaps a decade behind the other engineering nations in having a viable product. The Volt is already a decade obsolete and will not hit market for another three years.

The Zenn using EESTore technology already is far ahead of any US prototype.

http://cleantech.com/news/2644/zenn-gearing-up-for-eestor-powered-car