Current Savers Blog

A recent trip to bicyle-peppered cities Copenhagen and Amsterdam got me thinking about the pedal possibilities in U.S. cities. Alas, New York, the country’s biggest city, has long way to go make biking easier, and that seems true in many other cities in the world’s largest motor fuel consumer.

As gasoline nears $4.00 a gallon throughout the country one might think that U.S. commuters would be jumping on their bikes. Evidently the prices aren’t high enough yet.

Here in New York, it’s Bike Month and though I live just 7 miles from my office in Times Square, I haven’t two-wheeled it in yet, though I did for years. Likely, I won’t any time soon because fighting traffic across the avenues isn’t appealing anymore.

Granted, NYC has made made biking improvements over the last decade, building and extending bicycle paths on Manhattan’s edges and keeping lanes open on most of its bridges, which offer spectacular river views. And New York City has plans to double the number of bike commuters by 2015 and add 200 miles of bike lanes by the end of the decade.

But bike lanes in the bustling parts of the island are probably used as much by darting cabs and other vehicles as much as people who pedal, which can make for a harrowing experience.

Sure, New York City streets will probably always be louder than those in Amsterdam where fenders banging against bike frames can sometimes be the loudest traffic noise one hears, or in Copenhagen, where bike lanes often have their own traffic lights.

But with Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s traffic congestion plan defeated and few businesses offering bike parking space, things don’t look like they will improve much soon.

Or at least not enough so that New Yorkers will be biking their children around the city in droves like they do in Copenhagen.

What do you think, will New York and other U.S. cities catch up on biking as the price of oil rises?

Pic 1: Kid-moving bicycle in Copenhagen, a common sight. Pic 2: Bicycle parking in Amsterdam. Pic 3: Biking in New York. Photos, Tim Gardner.

So what happened to global warming?

It’s not just that it’s disappeared from media headlines this year - shoved off by the credit crunch and natural disasters, for example. It can’t be ignored that 2007 came and went as another very warm year - the 7th hottest on record since 1850 according to the World Meteorological Organization.

But it wasn’t a record. In fact that was 1998, a full 10 years ago — the year of an exceptional El Nino, a Pacific weather pattern which heats the whole globe. So is global warming not living up to the hype?

Two weeks ago Leibniz Institute’s Noel Keenlyside stirred an academic hornet’s
nest by saying that we may have to wait longer - a decade or more - for another
peak year, because a natural weakening in ocean currents may be cooling sea
temperatures.

Many scientists flatly rejected the idea, saying Keenlyside had over-estimated the effect. But some pointed out that a recent switch in a weather pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation could indeed cool temperatures globally.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year recent warming was
“unequivocal” and most of it ”very likely” manmade. And almost all scientists in the latest debate, including Keenlyside, agree that any temporary cooling doesn’t alter that - blips due to natural effects are to be expected.

But how long is a blip? No-one knows.

It could be many years before there’s an El Nino as bad as 1998, scientists say. And in the meantime the doubts will grow, just as policymakers try to negotiate one of the most complex global treaties ever. A new Kyoto Protocol will affect issues of equity and poverty: in the case of poor countries the right to grow, for island states perhaps the right to exist, and for rich countries the right to compete on a level economic playing field.

Meanwhile one or two doubters are already saying the present lull in warming
casts doubt on just how far manmade greenhouse gases are influencing the climate. MIT’s Richard Lindzen reckoned that if it was as bad as all that temperatures would be rising faster.

What do you think?

Are high gas prices killing Americans’ love affair with gas-guzzling SUVs? Looks that way.

In April, SUVs and light trucks took their smallest share of total U.S. vehicle sales in nearly nine years, and dealers sold more new cars than trucks for the second month running — the first time that’s happened since 2001. While many factors have teamed up to torpedo sales of high-ticket vehicles like SUVs — tighter credit, a tough job market, slumping real estate values and a generally soft economy — the fact that pump prices have soared to a record aren’t helping, as the chart shows.

This trend might not easily reverse in May. Gas prices are up an average of 3 percent in the first two weeks of the month, with the latest weekly average pump price setting a fresh record of $3.72 a gallon, according to the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration.

The story of Noah’s Ark in The Bible is widely read as an allegory and discoveries of a stunning range of species of wildlife raise questions, for those who believe in the account as literal truth, about how they all crammed aboard.

The total number of species of animals and plants on the planet, according to biologists, may well range up to the tens of millions. About 1.8 million have been identified so far – many of them are plants and fish that Noah did not take along to escape the flood, according to the Book of Genesis.

Even the Ark, with its three decks, would have quickly filled if Noah took at least two of all living creatures as God instructed Noah in the Book of Genesis. 

Modern maritime standards are that cows, for instance, need about 2 square metres each on ocean voyages in pens of about half a dozen. The Ark was about 140 metres (460 feet) long — the world’s biggest container ships are now almost 400 metres long.

One 2004 poll showed that 60 percent of Americans read the story of Noah’s Ark as literally true.

Some creationists  say that the instructions to Noah to take along all ”kinds” of animals might indicate a broader grouping than “species” — perhaps just one pair to represent cows, buffaloes or yak. And maybe insects, of which there are many thousands of species, managed to survive on floating uprooted trees? Noah might have taken along juveniles, or God might have induced a type of hibernation.

What do you think?

A worldwide tree planting campaign is aiming to reach a total of 7 billion by the end of 2009 – that means just over one for everyone on the planet.

The United Nations says the campaign has exceeded expectations since it began in late 2006 with a goal of planting one billion within a year: two billion have been planted already. That means another 5 billion by late 2009.

A lot of the plantings so far have been by carried out governments —  including 700 million by Ethiopia, 400 million by Turkey and 250 million by Mexico. That still leaves a lot still to be planted by companies and people like you and me.

Of course it leaves questions about how many survive — there are no checks to see if the saplings — like the one in the photo being planted by Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangaari Maathai (right) in 2006, grow to maturity. 

Trees absorn carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow and release it when they rot or are burned. So planting trees can take a chunk out of global warming — a U.N. official says that 7 billion trees would, if they reach maturity, soak up as much greenhouse gases as Russia emits in a year.

Have you noticed more trees in your neighbourhood? Or have you planted any?

A new survey by the Pew Research Center indicates that U.S. Republicans, never warm to the idea of human-induced climate change or rising global temperatures, are growing even cooler to the idea.  

Most scientists have linked climbing temperatures to so-called greenhouse gas emissions from carbon fuels such as oil and coal.

“The proportion of Americans who say that the earth is getting warmer has decreased modestly since January 2007, mostly because of a decline among Republicans,” Pew says.

It was refering to findings from its latest nationwide survey of 1,502 adults which was conducted April 23-27.

“Republicans are increasingly skeptical that there is solid evidence that the earth has been warming over the past few decades: just 49 percent of Republicans say there is evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been rising, down 13 points since January 2007,” it said.

It said that overall 71 percent of those surveyed thought there was solid evidence of a warming world compared to 77 percent in January of 2007.

It further found that about half of Americans or 47 percent believe global warming is the result of human activity but views on the subject reflect a sharp partisan divide. It said 27 percent of Republicans hold this view versus 58 percent of Democrats.

This partisan divide narrows among the non-skeptics in both parties.

“Despite the huge partisan differences over whether the earth is warming, majorities of those in both parties who say there is evidence of global warming believe that it is possible to reduce the effects of higher global temperatures,” Pew said.

“Overall, 74 percent of those who say there is solid evidence of global warming say it is possible to reduce its effects, up from 67 percent in June 2006. Among those who believe there is solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer, there is little difference in those who think that it is possible to reduce the effects among Republicans 69 percent, Democrats 74 percent, and independents 77 percent.”

Pew does not speculate about the causes of the overall shift in sentiment.  On the Republican side this may not be good news for the party’s presumptive presidential candidate John McCain who advocates a more activist policy on the issue than that pursued by President George W. Bush.

Perhaps  environmental awareness wanes when the economy hits a rough patch. Or perhaps the skeptics would argue that they have not seen any really convincing new evidence or studies over the past year on the subject.

A California company called E-Fuel  wants you to ferment home brew  — for your car.  It sells a $10,000 portable ”MicroFueler” that plugs into home power and water supplies to ferment sugar into 100 percent ethanol at a rate of 35 gallons ( 132 liters) per week.  

For families that drive at least a combined 34,500 miles (55,520 km)  in cars that get average fuel efficiency, the MicroFueler will pay for itself in less than two years if gasoline prices stay near record levels, says Tom Quinn, the company’s CEO and financial backer.

E-Fuels says it will link buyers to cheap supplies of sugar, such as inedible surplus sweetener from Mexico, and launch a carbon credit system to cut the feedstock cost of regular table sugar.

“This paradigm shift is not going to work unless we can knock out of the ballpark the cost of feedstock,” Quinn said at the unveiling of the MicroFueler in New York. He said the credits could knock down the cost of fueling up to less than $1 per gallon (3.8 liters).

 E-Fuel says the unit will start shipping late this year.

Interesting product, but will it help ease motor fuel prices or fade the black eye corn-made ethanol has gotten for helping to push up grain and food prices? “This could be fun for tinkerers, but unfortunately it’s not a quick solution for our problems,” said Nathanael Greene, a resource specialist at green group the Natural Resources Defense Council.

What do you think? Pricey gadget or fount of bargain fuel?  

Can the running shoes we buy really help protect the environment?

According to a new list by nonprofit group Climate Counts, Nike ranked first among the world’s most climate-friendly companies.

In its second annual report, Climate Counts ranked companies based on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support of global warming legislation, public disclosure of their efforts to address climate change, and whether they measure their impacts on the environment.

Nike ranked well in all those areas, garnering a score of 82 out of a possible 100 points. Stonyfield Farm, IBM, Unilever, Canon, General Electric, Toshiba, Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard and Sony rounded out the list’s top 10.

Google, Anheuser-Busch and Levi Strauss logged the largest score improvements, each jumping over 20 points since last year. The average company score improved 22 percent over last year, when Canon was the top scorer.

Who were the losers? In a word, restaurants.

Olive Garden and Red Lobster owner Darden Restaurants, Wendy’s and Burger King each scored zero out of 100 points, while KFC and Taco Bell owner Yum Brands registered a single point for encouraging reduction of energy consumption.

Jones Apparel Group was the only other company to receive a score of zero.

For Climate Counts’ full list, click here.

Stuart Gaffin is a climate researcher at Columbia University  and is a regular contributor with his blog “Exhausted Earth”. ThomsonReuters is not responsible for the content - the views are the author’s alone.

On April 16 President Bush gave a speech laying out a new United States climate policy goal - stabilizing US emissions by the year 2025.

During the course of this speech the President reported as progress a previous goal he had announced in 2002: that the “carbon intensity” of the US economy under his administration has been declining at the rate of about 18% per decade — the rate he targeted in 2002. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon emitted by US fossil fuel combustion per dollar of US economic output.

There has been both just and unjust criticism about using this benchmark for progress on US climate. Just criticism is the fact that the US economy has long been ‘decarbonizing,’ including under the Clinton Administration, at a little less than 18% per decade, without any climate change policies.

The forces driving this include continual improvements in energy efficiency, structural changes in the economy like the growing information technology sector and environmental concerns unrelated to climate, like air pollution control. Therefore the US administration did not make clear to the public the actual meekness of the 2002 goal.

The US administration should not be faulted however for focusing on carbon intensity as a key metric for progress, in addition to total emissions. Carbon intensity must indeed drop if we are ever going to control emissions. It just has to do so fast enough to offset economic growth.

So, for example, the new goal of stabilizing US emissions in 2025 simply means carbon intensity has to decline at the same rate as US economic growth then: if the economy is growing at say 3%, then carbon intensity must decline at 3%. Eventually, to bring actual US emissions down, the intensity will have to decline at a faster rate than the economy is growing.

There is nothing wrong with framing climate policy this way (although many do not feel that US emission stabilization in 2025 is enough.)

Indeed, we ought to be speaking much more about carbon intensity so that it attains the same familiarity in the public mind as economic growth rates and population growth rates. It is going to be one of the most important economic and environmental numbers of the 21st century.

It’s hard to imagine how big some of the cracks are on this link to satellite images of the Arctic ice during winter – dark lines hundreds of miles (km) long abruptly appear off the Canadian islands at the bottom right of the picture as the ice swirls through the winter.

At the top right, vast amounts of ice are flowing out of the Arctic basin southwards along the coast of Greenland.

“As of the middle of March, most of the basin, including the pole itself, appears to be covered only by seasonal ice,” it says. The image comes from Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, via a link supplied by Thomas Homer Dixon, an environmental expert at the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto.

The summer sea ice in the Arctic shrank to a record low extent in September 2007, outstripping the previous 2005 record, according to satellite observations since the 1970s. Dark water, once exposed, soaks up ever more heat than reflective ice and snow, accelerating the process. A less chill Arctic in turn would tend to heat the rest of the globe.

And some researchers say that the Arctic ice may have reached a “tipping point” because of global warming and that it is destined to vanish in summers within decades — earlier than projected by the U.N. Climate Panel.

What do you think?