Boost Fuel Economy Standards

Posted on | April 7, 2010 | Comments Off

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly established new federal rules on April 1 that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules, which will significantly increase the fuel economy of the vehicles starting with the 2012 model year, could save the average buyer $3,000 over the life of a 2016 model year car. Overall, the measures will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil, and reduce nearly a billion tons of GHG emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered.

The final rules, issued by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA, establish increasingly stringent fuel economy standards under NHTSA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy program and GHG emission standards under the Clean Air Act for vehicles produced in model years 2012 through 2016. The collaboration of federal agencies also allows for clearer rules for all automakers, instead of three standards (DOT, EPA, and a state standard). Starting with 2012 model year vehicles, the rules require automakers to improve fleet-wide fuel economy and reduce fleet-wide GHG emissions by approximately 5% every year. NHTSA has established fuel economy standards that strengthen each year, reaching an estimated 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) for the combined industry-wide fleet for model year 2016. However, because credits for air-conditioning improvements can be used to meet the EPA standards, the rules require manufacturers to achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile by the 2016 model year. If all the GHG reductions came from fuel economy improvements, this would be equivalent to 35.5 mpg.

The joint final regulation achieves the goal set by President Obama to develop a national program to establish federal standards that meet the needs of the states and the nation as a whole to conserve fuel and reduce GHG emissions. NHTSA and EPA expect automobile manufacturers to meet these standards by more widespread adoption of conventional efficiency technologies that are already in commercial use, such as improved aerodynamics, lighter materials, and more efficient engines, transmissions, and tires, as well as improvements in air conditioning systems. The agencies also expect some manufacturers to pursue more advanced fuel-saving technologies such as clean diesel engines, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles.

Bluefin Tuna Ban Fails

Posted on | March 30, 2010 | Comments Off

The United Nations has failed to agree on listing bluefin tuna at the recent meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna [CITES].

The decision occurred after Japan, Canada and many poor nations opposed the measure. Stocks of bluefin tuna have fallen by at least 85% since the industrial fishing era began. Bluefin quotas are set at a ludicrously high 13,500 tonnes by The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), but realistically over 60,000 tonnes are killed every year. The scientific community believe bluefin tuna may be extinct in the Mediterranean Sea in less than 5 years. The quota is too high, it is not enforced, there is insufficient political willpower to act, the same old story.

Monaco [who tabled the CITES ban motion] argued that the organization responsible for managing the bluefin fishery – ICCAT – had not implemented measures strict enough to ensure the species’ survival.

Bluefin tuna had been put forward for proposed listing as an Endangered Species on CITES Appendix I – which would result in a complete ban on trade in the species among CITES parties. An expert panel of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization had examined the issue and felt an Appendix I categorization was necessary. In fact even ICCAT’s scientific advisors had recommended a trade ban as being justified.

Japan is once again leading the charge into the termination of the species. Japan worked with her allies and stopped the ban being invoked. Over 80% of bluefin tuna is sold in Japan, and companies holding large stockpiles of the valuable fish are keen to see the species become extinct – they will reap enormous profits and be able to control the market. There is simply too much money involved with greedy self interest groups, illegal fish traders, and self-interested political forces having once again won the day. The bluefin tuna have no chance.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (Sea Shepherd) will be arriving in the Mediterranean this summer and will stand against the illegal overfishing of bluefin tuna. Sea Shepherd will do everything possible within the boundaries of international law to protect the magnificent bluefin. By sea, air, and land, preparations are well underway for the Mediterranean bluefin tuna defense campaign, and Sea Shepherd’s flagship vessel Steve Irwin, having just returned from intervening against illegal whaling off the coast of Antarctica, is now on its way to enforce international conservation law in European waters.

Steve Roest
Chief Executive Officer
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Federal Climate Change Programs

Posted on | March 30, 2010 | Comments Off

As awareness of global climate change has expanded over past decades, Congresses and Administrations have committed several billion dollars annually to studying climate change and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. Most of that spending is done by the Department of Energy (DOE) and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, although a dozen other federal agencies also participate. The effort has included funding science and technology, creating tax preferences, and assisting other countries in their attempts to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. In a study released this afternoon, CBO examines the government’s commitment of resources to those purposes. The study presents information on current spending and analyzes recent patterns and trends in spending.

From 1998 through 2009, appropriations for agencies’ work related to climate change totaled about $99 billion (in 2009 dollars); more than a third of that sum—$35.7 billion by CBO’s estimation—was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (see the figure below). During that period, the nation’s commitment to climate-related technology development increased significantly, as has the forgone revenue attributable to tax preferences. Funding for climate science and international assistance, by contrast, stayed roughly constant.

Growth in reported funding for climate programs occurred in three ways over the past decade. First, funding increased for some programs whose basic mission was maintained throughout the period. Second, as different Administrations reconsidered what constituted a climate change program, some programs, most notably those in DOE for the development of nuclear power, were included in the tabulation without a change in mission. Third, the focus of some programs has shifted to emphasize climate change. DOE’s program for research and development (R&D) on energy supplied from fossil fuels, for example, evolved from research on converting coal into liquid fuels to finding ways to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants.

There are several rationales for these federal activities. A leading argument in favor of federal support for climate science and technology R&D holds that because private developers of scientific and technical innovations do not capture all of the benefits from their discoveries and inventions, private investment is lower than would be justified by the magnitude of its benefit to society. A different rationale arises from the fact that the prices for fossil fuels and for carbon emission do not fully reflect environmental and social costs. Some activities in the climate change budget can be viewed as compensating for the lower energy prices. Although some or all of the conceptual justifications could apply to many types of policies, they do not indicate that any particular federal program should be undertaken.

CBO assessed the effect of technology programs for R&D, technology demonstration, energy efficiency, infrastructure investment, and tax preferences—areas in which there has been a significant recent commitment of resources. Previous analyses have shown that some programs in the climate change budget, although not all, have provided economic benefits to society that exceed the federal government’s investment.

This study was prepared by Philip Webre of CBO’s Microeconomic Studies Division.

Archipelago East Of Quebec Melting Away

Posted on | March 29, 2010 | Comments Off

The warmest winter on record is causing the ice to melt in Canada. The lack of ice has caused thousands of seals to breed elsewhere. The island economy is expected to lose 6 million dollars. Baby seals are dying.

Fishers and hunters are quite concerned about the changes. A resident said, “There are changes happening on this island. We see the erosion. We see the water level rising. We see lots of things. I really hope that all of this will be over soon… because otherwise it is going to be the end of the world pretty soon.”