Well, It seems that some lifetimes, compared to the beginning of life, is not a slow motion explosion, but a complete instant mess of everything.

It's cultural, it's the current order, technology exists to change things. But, let's be sincere with ourselves, people is still buying bigger and bigger cars to drive alone to the work. They don't feel responsible for the global heat, and, as I've seen on TV, people in the streets do not know that USA is the country that most lauches polution in the air. Here in Brazil, by it turn, there's a huge rate of polution, with the difference that here it doesn't even come from activities that generate any return to economy or society, but just burnings to clear fields for soy bean. This examples are closely followed by most of the developed (or not) coutries. I still think it's all about money. When someone is making money with it, he can buy politics, change laws, cut wood from native jango, or refuse to follow the Kioto protocol. Meanwhile, another smart set of guys proposed the "carbon credit" market. Pay attention, a lot of money will be earned by someone again. Like, if I pay a tax, my emissions will not harm the environment.

I'll reply then with another thinking, a simpler one, that I've seen in a poster with animals around:

"Someday the men will realise that they cannot eat money".

We've painted ourselves into a corner technologically, and we won't be able to get out of the corner without making a bit of a mess. I hope for future technologies to liberate us from fossil fuels before our dependence on them destroys our civilization, or raises the sea level high enough to flood my 10 feet above sea level living room.

Nature has been sequestering a lot of things. Humans have been taking them and dumping them, converted to another form (waste, in other words) and Nature sequesters these as well. Waste, the way we look at them, is something that cannot be used anymore. So we dump them. Whether they become a problem depends on us.

Oil is toxic to humans. If you were to jump in a lake of oil, you'd die in a few minutes. Yet, if we were to find such a lake, we think EUREKA! Kaching!

CO₂ is toxic to humans. In contrast to our reaction to oil, we aren't thinking of enough ways to reuse this CO₂. We're producing tons of it! Yet, there doesn't seem to be enough research into duplicating what plants do to CO₂ and water. What research there is, isn't funded as well as, say, the military. We've got our priorities all screwed up.

Nature doesn't care about us. She'll continue sequestering things, toxic or not. The Earth will still be around 1000 years later. Whether WE are around in 1000 years is another question.

Maybe we should stop saying, "save Mother Earth". People don't care about Mother Earth. They'll care when you say, "save ourselves". It's selfish, yes, but it makes sense.

If we want to be around for the next 1000 years, we need to look for ways to reduce and use the waste. Reducing only delays the end. Using the waste eliminates the end (unless Nature decides to send Halley's Comet on a collision course with Earth).

Conservation of Energy & Our Environment? What is the first law of physics. You can not create energy, nor destroy it, you can only change its form. What man kind needs to do is to learn how to change it's form in a way that that will help nature and the environment get along without killing everything in the world.The $25 million Prize for reducing the world of 3 Billion tons of co2 is the biggest farce I have ever seen offered to the people of the world. It was probably started by some guy that will make million flying his new super planes around the world. Why would anybody put up such a scam unless is was to reduce pollution in the atmosphere by the same amount of pollution or more that will be created by the thousands of Supersize airplanes, that are being presently being designed, ordered, and all will be flying and adding to tons of pollution to the atmosphere starting in the next 4 years and continuing for the next 40 years. DonnieH

Its not a puzzle at all.

Nature hasn't been "sequestering" CO₂. It is part of the carbon cycle, and life on this earth is carbon based. It is no more a poison to us than water is. Living things accumulate carbon as they grow, and return it through respiration and, after they die through decay. That some of this material was buried and converted to hydrocarbons that we presently use for fuel was not natures way of sequestering carbon, because more carbon had to enter the cycle to replace it. Unfortunately we are presently burning this store at a prodigious rate but it is only a temporary blip in the history of life here on earth. We won't continue at the present rate for too much longer for the simple reason the cheap and easy to get at fossil fuels are being used up as we speak, and as they get more expensive, alternatives will come on line. Additionally we are now taking some steps to hasten the onset of some alternatives.

Global warming is an issue that should be addressed, but lets not get hysterical about it and go overboard on doomsday scenarios. CO₂ levels in the atmosphere have varied over time, and so has climate, long before we invented the power plant or automobile, and will continue to do so whether we are here or not.

That doesn't mean we should ignore our damage to the environment, but in the big scheme of things, global warming is probably one of the less harmful things we are doing to the environment.

We should be looking to minimize our overall environmental footprint, including greenhouse gas emissions. If, however, in our irresponsibility, we go on as we have, in not too many decades the price of the limited fossil fuels will have spawned many alternatives anyway. so there is at least that note of cautious optimism. I can't say the same for the damage we are doing to the oceans, the rivers and shorelines, and other species all over the planet. We are destroying much of the diversity of living things. We are not very good stewards of our planet to say the least, and while we and life in general will survive our folly, it will be a lesser place than it could have and should have been.

Lets try to take a reasoned approach and change what we can in a deliberate, well thought out and purposeful manner. Getting worked up into a "doomsday is around the corner" frame of mind will only interfere with that effort. There are too many examples of environmental harm being caused by prematurely rushing into something that "sounded" good.

Write your representatives to increase mileage standards, raise the tax on motor fuels incrementally over a reasonable period of time, limit the emissions from power plants, and so on. We are scientists, engineers and technical people of all skills, so let's do what we can, without adding to the unreasoned rush "to do something (anything)" of the less scientifically aware.

Our expertise is needed to influence things to move in the right direction based on good science rather than just wishful thinking. There is presently far too much of the latter. Just look at the many recent posts asking about, or presenting free energy, perpetual motion, over unity schemes. This is not a productive assault on the problem and represents only the tip of the iceberg of so many things that are only diversions from sound energy and environmental policy.

Greg

.

Greg G:Write your representatives to increase mileage standards, raise the tax on motor fuels incrementally over a reasonable period of time, limit the emissions from power plants, and so on. We are scientists, engineers and technical people of all skills, so let's do what we can, without adding to the unreasoned rush "to do something (anything)" of the less scientifically aware.

Greg try this idea.

If President Bush really believes that "Oil Addiction" is a National Security issue and a significant portion of that consumption is driven by personal vehicles ... how can it be quickly "fixed"? CAFE will not do it even after almost 30 years of debates.

Consider this "simple" idea.

President Bush could, with an Executive Order under the WAR POWERS ACT on the grounds of National Security, could WAIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON ALL VEHICLES THAT GET MORE THAN 45 mpg(US) combined AVERAGE and that MEET or exceed Euro Step IV Emissions and current Euro SAFETY STANDARDS for only 24 months.

CAFE doesn't get discussed. Vehicles could be arriving in 30 days (or less).

The Issues:

1) Vehicles are already Euro Step IV emissions & Safety certified ... close to US domestic standards.

2) The quantity of vehicles available for import is limited by world supply and other market forces.

3) Each 45+ mpg vehicle placed on USA roads reduces fuel consumption by about 50% (or more, depending on the vehicle being displaced) and subsequently emissions are reduced proportionally.

4) The 24 month waiver period allows the auto industry time to develop technologies, processes, and manufacturing capabilities to meet "domestic" standards (emissions, safety, etc.).

5) If, during this 24 month period only 0.6 million high mpg vehicles are sold, this would be roughly the equivalent in fuel consumption and emissions of removing roughly 300,000 vehicles from the road. That could be a fuel savings in excess of 0.2 billion gallons annually. (Note: according to 40mpg.org there are 2.5 million American consumers waiting for the 40/50 mpg vehicles ... a ready market.)

6) It does not cost the US auto industry any sales (since they had no product to satisfy this demand), money, or time. It does give "Detroit" visibility regarding what these unserved consumers want and opens an expanded domestic market.

Geeeezzz .... we forgot to talk about CAFE ... nice HUH?

S Houston.

You made a well thought out post, but I can't support your "simple idea". Not because it doesn't have merit, but because I feel it would be an overreaction, and cost American jobs. It most certainly would cost the US auto industry sales, 24 months is not enough time to develop the proper vehicles from the abysmal offerings they have for the most part now, and the 45+ MPG figures you cite are quite a stretch for the vehicle mix that sell here in any numbers. In abstract terms the American auto industry certainly deserves to be punished, but unfortunately that would require hurting the autoworkers, and I do not want to do that.

Ratcheting up the CAFE standards and encouraging diesels will work fine if they DO IT. Exempting light trucks and SUVs from high mileage requirements was a huge mistake, and served no one's interest in the long run. The American auto industry has proved time and time again that it is its own worst enemy. While they are hyping futuristic hydrogen fuel cell powered cars at auto shows, their actual product lineup is at least a decade behind the mileage curve.

That successive administrations and our congress, of either party since the first oil shortage in the 1970s have failed to deal in any meaningful way with our reliance on imported oil, is, from a national security viewpoint, a scandal. That it took us until just recently to lower the sulphur content of diesel fuel is symptomatic of the hypocrisy and ineptness of our elected officials. Ditto for our failure to develop a safe fission reactor model, and "mass produce" it, or require our power plants, especially new coal fired plants to meet higher emission standards.

We need a reasonably consistent overall blueprint to address the related issues of energy independence, the environment, and energy conservation. Sadly we have none after all these years.

As to satisfying the automotive "unserved consumers", they are free to buy efficient imports right now (except for the difficulty with diesels due to our dirty diesel fuel and outmoded view of diesel powered cars, but that at least is finally changing). I am not a believer in statistics like the one you mention from 40mpg.org, for the simple reason that actual vehicle sales don't support them at all. Surveying consumers in a questionnaire is one thing, what they actually buy when all things are considered is quite another.

Although it is late in the day so to speak, my argument is for a reasoned, comprehensive, and long range approach rather than any sudden major action in any one area.

Regards, Greg

Greg.

I can't support your "simple idea" … because I feel it would be an overreaction, and cost American jobs. It most certainly would cost the US auto industry sales, 24 months is not enough time to develop the proper vehicles from the abysmal offerings they have for the most part now, and the 45+ MPG figures you cite are quite a stretch for the vehicle mix that sell here in any numbers.

American jobs are already lost, at least 100,000 plus (and more to come) in the auto manufacturers and probably 2 to 7 times that in the support industries and who knows what is happened to the dealers in the last 18 months. It is further agreed that 24 months would be an impossible schedule using the current development strategies and methodologies … look at the last 30 years! It is further agreed that the proposed strategy is not a smooth transition … it is a JUMP … a real step function!

Regarding the technology stretch, currently in the UK there are 48 vehicles that achieve greater than 44 mpg(US) combined average [45 get 45 mpg and only 3 are gasoline] that are produced by BMW, DCX, GM, FORD, HONDA, HYUNDAI, MAZDA, MITSUBISHI, NISSON, SUZUKI, TOYOTA, and VW (or their subsidiaries).

In abstract terms the American auto industry certainly deserves to be punished, but unfortunately that would require hurting the autoworkers, and I do not want to do that.

This idea is NOT presented to punish the US auto industry … but to SAVE IT!!

Ratcheting up the CAFE standards and encouraging diesels will work fine if they DO IT.

Has this worked over the last 25 - 30 years? Certainly not since 1990!! It almost appears that more effort has be expended "figuring out how to get around it" than achieving its' objective … higher fuel economy.

Exempting light trucks and SUVs from high mileage requirements was a huge mistake, and served no one's interest in the long run. The American auto industry has proved time and time again that it is its own worst enemy. While they are hyping futuristic hydrogen fuel cell powered cars at auto shows, their actual product lineup is at least a decade behind the mileage curve.

It is further reasonable to expect that until renewable generation of electricity becomes dominant, that both the electric and hydrogen car will result in about 2X the emissions of one of the "clean" small turbo diesels.

That successive administrations and our congress, of either party since the first oil shortage in the 1970s have failed to deal in any meaningful way with our reliance on imported oil, is, from a national security viewpoint, a scandal. That it took us until just recently to lower the sulphur content of diesel fuel is symptomatic of the hypocrisy and ineptness of our elected officials. Ditto for our failure to develop a safe fission reactor model, and "mass produce" it, or require our power plants, especially new coal fired plants to meet higher emission standards.

Your points are VERY VALID! That is why the solution MUST BE SO SIMPLE THAT POLITICIANS and BUSSINESS types can't mess it up! Hence, the WAIVER!!

We need a reasonably consistent overall blueprint to address the related issues of energy independence, the environment, and energy conservation. Sadly we have none after all these years.

But the import restriction waiver places the solution in the hands of the CONSUMER … they will have a choice … some already understand and many will learn. Hopefully they will be wiser than the politicians.

As to satisfying the automotive "unserved consumers", they are free to buy efficient imports right now (except for the difficulty with diesels due to our dirty diesel fuel and outmoded view of diesel powered cars, but that at least is finally changing). I am not a believer in statistics like the one you mention from 40mpg.org, for the simple reason that actual vehicle sales don't support them at all. Surveying consumers in a questionnaire is one thing, what they actually buy when all things are considered is quite another.

You point about the "unserved consumers" is a little off. And, if you think importation is easy ask the folks at SMART! There are only 4 vehicles in the USA that are rated by EPA (Feb 2007) for greater than 35 mpg(US) average and only 2 of those are rated above 40 mpg. That compares to the 48 vehicles mentioned above that get 44 mpg(US) or better. So… what is the choice? Many people feel hybrids are to complex and have not lived up to the hype. Again, this is a distorted market with no real choices! Why can a 1992-5 Honda Civic VX command a $4,000 price?

The second part of the statement about what the consumer will do is also absolutely true … he/she is unpredictable. This makes any "new" product introduction a great risk of resources (money, manpower, and time). A roll of the dice. Again, that is the beauty of the import waiver … put existing product on ships, deliver, and sell them. If they don't sell just don't bring anymore into the country. If they do sell, start restructuring production capabilities and developing methods to resolve any "domestic" emissions an d safety issues. The entire effort becomes very focused! If they don't sell at all it is no major loss. However, if the demand is greater than (or even equal to) 40mpg.org's estimates … there is an entirely "new" market segment and new production opportunity!

Although it is late in the day so to speak, my argument is for a reasoned, comprehensive, and long range approach rather than any sudden major action in any one area.

But that has been going on since 1974! We need to do something different … and the only thing I have been able to come up with is to

WAIVE IMPORT RESTRICTION on vehicles that acheive greater than 44 mpg(US) combined average plus, at minimum meet, Euro safety and emissions Euro Step IV standards (or the Asian equivalents) for 24 months (longer if you want).

Best Regards and thanks for a thoughtful response.

S Houston,

I don't disagree with your points, but I would only agree with a waiver if it was to begin after a 2 year "grace" period to give our auto industry a chance to redeem themselves. They are presently where they deserve to be: up against the ropes financially, I just don't want to push them over the brink is all ... they may well follow past history and do it themselves (go bankrupt or whatever), but it's up to them. In all fairness to them, because our politicians refuse to institute some form of national healthcare, and instead, put it squarely on the backs of employers, the typical US car price contains more money for the health benefits of the autoworkers than the cost of the steel in it.

The CAFE standards were working until they stopped increasing them and left the huge loophole for light trucks and SUVs.

"That is why the solution MUST BE SO SIMPLE THAT POLITICIANS and BUSSINESS types can't mess it up!"

NOTHING comes out of congress simple by the time they get done with it. We both know that between the politics, lobbyists and business types it will be screwed up anyway.

In any case, our disagreement is one of degree only I think.

Regards, Greg

Greg G is very right in his perception and insight into our position on this earth. There is a natural order in place that we are a part. This order is very fragile when viewed from an individuals limited environmental contact. We have seen historical evidence of the fragility of nature in past civilizations consumption impact. They did not have the privilege of seeing beyond their horizon so they lost a foothold within the environment and the natural order adjusted over time.

Our unlimited horizon no longer exists...we have nowhere Else to go so we must find ways to co-exist with the natural order. Reducing consumption is good, but not enough. Finding ways to generate huge amounts of power and transmitting it over hundreds of miles in order to energize a 65.000 pixel wide screen TV may not be so good. Cutting our individual footprint within our immediate circle of influence by eliminating the need for large amounts of energy to support an over-indulged lifestyle would suggest that it may be good to seek out new forms of source proximity supply while at the same time re-engineering electro-mechanical structure and place a price on over-indulgence to manufacture the natural adjustment required.

Call it the Robin-hood syndrome but we need to hold those who consume the most responsible to manage their impact. If it costs to consume than it may cause enough financial pain for the wealthiest consumers to fund the change for their own continued existence.

The largest people group on the earth are on the cusp of an economic expansion unprecedented in time. What fossilized energy is left within the earth will be consumed at an exponential rate depleting our resources in a time frame that will require the wealthiest nations to find alternative sources while this expansion takes place. We have been privileged to benefit from past expansion so lets stay ahead of the one that is in progress getting ready for the time when we will need it.

Oh...and by the way....25 million is at best a laughing stock joke. It is going to take trillions of dollars along with the cooperation of many nations involving hundreds of thousands of men and women to bring together in a collective effort to change this world. I personally am offended on one hand and embarrassed on the other to live in a nation that would let some ego seeking self-appointed eco-industrialist to reduce the problems we face in the future to a price. They need to come down off their horse or jet or internet or whatever and roll their sleeves up, break at sweat and become a part of the solution. They can keep their money because it's going to take more than they have collectively to keep this big ball blue.

Just my thoughts....that's all.

Using less is the 'easy' short term thing to do. Levelling the intellectual property playing field will enable western countries to export leading edge technologies for the energy industry to Asia Pacific and third world countries without fear of losing their rights. A 'Manhattan Project' type activity to make alternatives really happen is the level of effort required and along with that LEADERSHIP: Global leadership, national leadership, local leadership, political leadership, technical leadership, financial leadership. It's the last item that has me most concerned....where is OUR leadership in this area?

Apparently noone here has taken any geology courses.

CO2 has been mostly "sequestered" into carbonate rocks and also into corals and shells.

The earlier post about the carbon cycle made the proper point.

The real issue that no one seems to get is that the earth has never been "Steady State." The changes that we currently have the technology to observe, may or may not be causal with perturbations in the current state, or they may just be correlated. Hopefully we all know the difference between causal and correlated, but it never comes out in a sound bite.

Whats the slope of a point? we have pretty fair temperature data for 30 or 40 years, extrapolated temperature data for a few thousand, margin of error many times the diecrimination of the data. and those time perods are but a blink over the vast geological time span.

Do people make species go extinct? Yes. Ask the late mastadon of North America. Growing up, we were taught theres a no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL). Todays coorelate: Theres a no such thing as a steady state (TANSTAASS).

But as with any sudden awakening- in this case a 30 year old sensing technology allows us to "take our planets temperature"- there are many ways of responding. Hysterical panic, blaming the evils of technology that allow us to locally exceed carrying capacity- is one approach. Going to an "absorption of energy" model instead of a "generation of energy " is another. There is more than enough solar gain to handle all mankinds energy needs every day. Plenty of fissile materials too.

Until the nightmare screamers get their hands off the media controls, we will continue to see and hear panic instead of facts. Reaction instead of planned innovation. But media runs on sales, so more fear is the plan for the next few decades.

It is easy to blame the Big- foot print consumers, but the big foot print consumers created the technologies that minimized the limiting factors that the environment used to control us. And by the way, NYC might well be the worlds greenest city when you look at carbon footprint.

Have a nice day.

Milo

.

Milo,

Good point on the carbonate rocks, corals etc.

I was specifically addressing the OP's misstatement of "nature sequestering CO₂ as fossil fuels".

Unlike some, I do not feel it is necessary to reduce our standard of living or return to some mythical past of less labor saving technology. Rather I feel we have to modify the way we produce and use energy.

I also accept the fact that things may have to get worse before they get better, because certainly one of the issues is the raw number of human population and the sobering reality that low standards of living equate to high birthrates, while higher standards of living equates to lower birthrates. In other words, it is incumbent on us to assist in raising the worldwide standard of living. In the short term, the simple fact is that doing this will increase environmental harm despite all the potential green technologies out there and people claiming it can be otherwise. Of course in some "ideal" world, it could be otherwise, but we don't live in that world, assuming it even exists.

Once our technology and environmental footprint are brought in line with a stable world population number, then real progress in absolute terms can be made. This is not pie in the sky, since the developed countries are either presently experiencing very little population growth, or actual declines in population if immigration is factored out. The size of their "footprint" on a per capita basis is also declining or at least leveling out overall.

Regards, Greg

"Once our technology and environmental footprint are brought in line with a stable world population number, then real progress in absolute terms can be made. This is not pie in the sky, since the developed countries are either presently experiencing very little population growth, or actual declines in population if immigration is factored out. The size of their "footprint" on a per capita basis is also declining or at least leveling out overall." Regards, Greg

In the USA, currently at least 1/3 of the oil consumed is in "light vehicle" applications and Detroit has been expanding our energy consumption foot print for the last 17 years at minimum. "We" just argue about Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and mpg goes down with larger and heavier vehicles.

The purpose of the WAIVER of IMPORT RESTRICTION on VERY HIGH mpg CARS (into the USA) as proposed in #6 ... is to break the political/technical fuel economy stalemate that has existed for at last 17 years here in the USA.

The waiver is proposed as a short term stimuli to the market ... the consumers, technologist, manufacturers, and our government leaders.

The true objective of this effort is to reduce OUR ENERGY FOOT PRINT and to reestablish innovative thinking in the USA's automotive technologies and the market place in order to acheave real action toward lower fuel consumption.

S Houston,

I agree that we disagree.

"Detroit has been expanding our energy consumption foot print for the last 17 years at minimum."

I don't agree that Detroit did that, and certainly not by itself.

We (American consumers) did! Detroit merely took the easiest path and encouraged us to do what we wanted anyway.

There has been no shortage of well made (as in better than Detroit), economical, yet powerful and safe vehicles available all along from foreign companies or even in some cases from Detroit itself.

Regards, Greg

"We (American consumers) did! Detroit merely took the easiest path and encouraged us to do what we wanted anyway." Greg

No that is not the case with ALL car buyers in the USA. Many have been waiting for many years to acquire a "true" Detroit high mpg machine. Remember last summer when they were proudly advertising their high 33 mpg machines ... their highway mpg. Ford has a fairly nice diesel in the UK that gets 57.5 mpg(US) highway, about 50 mpg(US) combined average.

According to studies there are about 2.5 million potential buyers that feel as I do. See study news release

In fact, according to fueleconomy.gov, the week of 3/5/07, there are only 47 models in the USA were rated 30 and above mpg(US) combined average while the only vehicles above 35 mpg average are the Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, and the 2 Yaris.

That is compared to the 48 vechicles achieving a combined average greater than 44 mpg(US) combined average avaiable in Europe from companies having significant sales presence in the USA. Vehicle Database

This is my opinion, even if I do have to concede that the US consumer has gratitated toward larger, heavier, and lower mpg vehicles. I contend that if the really HIGH mpg machines were available that were reliable, durable and "priced right" the market might look considerably different. The absence of product leaves us (you and I) with pure speculation as to what the market would really do. Particularly, now that gasoline prices have crossed $3.00/gallon (in California this week).

It is this fear that Detroit feels regarding the "fickle" nature of the consumer and why they are reluctant to put money, manpower, and time into a very HIGH MPG effort!

That is the key to the Import Waiver, no investment, "just do it" ... no investment required ... and let the "cards fall where they may". The industry could then act/invest based on observed response (knowledge)!

The response may dictate "no change required" ... but then again ... maybe a "big change is required".

Regardless, Detroit is in trouble NOW. They obvoiusly need something.

Just my opinion ...

S Houston,

"Many have been waiting for many years to acquire a "true" Detroit high mpg machine."

My advice: Stop waiting! Buy whatever vehicle you want. Detroit doesn't deserve our business, they have to earn it.

Your idea doesn't stand a chance of passing Congress. With a grace period it might ... That's all I'm saying. Repeating your idea endlessly accomplishes nothing.

It is less a question of what might work in an ideal world, and more a question of what might actually get done in this world.

Regards, Greg

"My advice: Stop waiting! Buy whatever vehicle you want. Detroit doesn't deserve our business, they have to earn it." Greg G.

Ok. If you think viable with a grace period AND you think it is a reasonable idea ... please tell your Senators and Representatives in DC.

By the way I do have a car that I enjoy ... a 95 CIVIC hatch. It is a fun car to drive and it can cruise extremely well all the way up to 80 mph. There are 2 things I would like to have, a cruise control and automatic transmission ... but I can't have everything.

At least this will do until something better comes along. It only has 140K miles on it now.

Unfortunately there is a problem with the CIVIC, my wife thinks it is too small. So goes life.

I'll just wait for the Honda diesel.