Posted by: Earl
on Mar 10, 2009
Fox News ran a story yesterday on where some of the stimulus money is headed. I am in favor of intelligent, "REAL" stimulus spending as I am in favor of a National Energy Policy. Our elected officials prove that they are either clueless or worse when they rush to spend our money on poorly thought out programs and try to muster support by calling it something it's not. I'm still waiting for some honest leadership. I'm not seeing it in either party.
Fox News Story
If you are going to spend so much or OUR money the least you can do is be honest about it and make some attempt to do the right thing in lieu of politics as usual. I'll not be holding my breath.
Posted by: Earl
on Feb 22, 2009
This is the second installment of Earl’s China Energy Adventure.
Can you imagine getting everyone in the US to change their attitude about energy conservation and recycling? Can the government make it happen? It’s been said that democracy is the least efficient form of government and a dictatorship the most efficient. A one-party, communist government in China is not exactly a dictatorship but it’s a lot more efficient at implementing regulations and getting people to follow their mandates. I’m certainly not advocating this system but it is interesting to observe what they are doing about their energy demand and pollution.
In the continuing saga of Earl’s Chinese Energy Adventure, Earl can’t go anywhere in China without continually seeing signs of green activity. I bought a few snacks and bottles of water (you still don’t want to drink tap water) from the local Carrefour store and had to buy the plastic bag to carry back to the hotel. I’ve heard that the plastic bags are going to be banned entirely very soon. There are billboards and signs on the sides of buses reminding people to conserve and recycle to improve their quality of life.
According to China Business Weekly, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) is promoting a project to put 5,000 hybrids, 20,000 hybrid taxis, and 5,000 electric vehicles on the streets in 30 cities by 2012. Estimates are that the project will save 780M liters of gasoline avoid emission of 2.3M tons of carbon dioxide. A MOST representative stated that “the core aim of a low-carbon economy is to increase energy efficiency and change the structure of energy consumption”.
This low-carbon economy is already making progress in both primary cities like Beijing and secondary cities (not readily recognizable by westerners but big cities by our standards). More than half of the world’s population live in urban areas with these areas contributing to 75% of the greenhouse gas emissions it is especially important to make the cities greener. Mega cities like Beijing and Shanghai are showcasing their efforts at events like last year’s Olympic Games and Shanghai’s upcoming environmentally friendly World Expo 2010.
China’s current air quality deserves the bad reputation it has gotten but, to be fair, the Chinese recognize the importance of cleaning up their act to the benefit of everyone. They've got a long way to go but Earl is impressed with the effort underway.
Posted by: Earl
on Jan 27, 2009
After a week of rapid fire Executive Orders and Memoranda from President Obama I have to wonder if someone fell asleep at the wheel? I take no issue with the need for improved standards as reported by FoxNews.com on Monday.
"The first memorandum ordered the Transportation Department to work out rules for automakers to improve fuel economy. It calls for the department to notify automakers by March 2009 to increase their fuel efficiency for 2011 model year cars and trucks. "
Unfortunately when reading further I'm having a problem.
"The second memorandum ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider California's request for a waiver from the Clean Air Act -- a move that would allow California, the nation's most populous state, to set tougher tailpipe emission standards than apply nationally. .....Thirteen other states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- have already signaled they will follow California's lead in reducing tailpipe pollution. Approval of California's waiver would affect roughly half of all cars and light trucks sold nationwide."
Doesn't this fall into the realm of protecting interstate commerce, one of the tenets of the U.S. Constitution? How could this even be feasible if the auto industry was not in critical condition. Can anyone possibly think that building vehicles to meet different standards in different states could be cost effective or efficient in any way. Technological innovation (and it is needed here) is not free. I'm not defending the auto industry in any way, shape, or fashion, but I certainly don't think that kicking them when they are down is going to help fix anything. Give me a break!
There's another problem with this. Having a fleet of vehicles that are more fuel efficient does not create demand for more fuel efficient. We can wish for people to demand these vehicles and it is true that demand is increasing but there are still a lot of people that don't care and don't feel it is there responsibility to do anything. This demand for efficiency has to be created in other ways. That's a subject for a later blog.
