Urban Ecoist

That’s right. I’m calling you out, Energy and Commerce Democrats. This Cash for Clunkers program may seem like a sunshine-y way to get Americans into fuel-efficient vehicles, but once again, reading the fine print, I notice that the program may be leaving a wide open door for Americans to buy more SUVs that still don’t get anywhere near even the old CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG.

Cash for Clunkers, if it passes Congress, will give up to one million American automobile buyers a voucher to use towards the purchase of a new, more fuel efficient vehicle. The vouchers come in two amounts — $3500 or $4500. So let’s multiply the average of those two amounts ($3000) by the number of vouchers, 1 million. The total “cost” for this program will be $4,000,000,000. That billion with a B. And that is not even factoring in administrative costs and what not.

1990 Dodge Monaco...classy.

The real problem lies in who is getting these magical vouchers. It’s not passenger car people. The vouchers will only go to people who can trade in a passenger vehicle that gets less than 18 MPG, which would be a 1990 Dodge Monaco or a 1985 Cadillac El Dorado convertible. Seriously, there are so few relatively modern “passenger vehicles” — that is not a light-duty truck, SUV, or large light-duty truck — that get less than 18 MPG that I’m guessing that very few Cash for Clunkers vouchers will be going to passenger car buyers.

So who will be getting these vouchers? Considering the vast majority of non-hybrid trucks and SUVs are lucky if they get a combined MPG of 18, then I am going to go out on a limb and say that only those who have a gas-guzzling truck or SUV will be able to qualify for the cash for clunker voucher. And the real winners are…American SUV makers.

In order to get the voucher for trading in a light-duty truck, you must be turning in a truck that gets under the 18 MPG threshold (check) and you need only to find a new truck or SUV that gets 2 mpg better than your trade-in. 2 mpg? Really? So we are going to reward those who turn in an SUV that gets, let’s say 18 MPG, for a new SUV that gets 21 MPG.

And when it comes to the large light-duty truck category, the trade-in truck only has to get one MPG better than the lower 15 MPG threshold to qualify for the $3500 voucher. If you upgrade to a large light-duty that gets 2 MPG better than your last truck, then you get the full $4500 voucher for that new 17 MPG truck.

Ok, so who couldn’t use $3500 or $4500 to buy a new car. I’m sure many a car buyer would be super stoked to get a voucher to buy a car that gets better gas mileage, but nope, sorry, the voucher is not for you, unless you are still driving a 1993 Lincoln Continental. But if you are driving a 2006 GMC Yukon, well, then you get a voucher for a new SUV that only gets 18 MPG.

Yay! The world is safe at last.

Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? I’m all for people making better decisions when it comes to buying cars, but come on, who stands to benefit from these vouchers? The same people who got a tax credit for buying those gas-luvin’ SUV’s five years ago.

When this bill goes before Congress, contact your representative and your senators to bitch about this, unless of course, you are in the market for a new SUV.

cash for clunkers, MPG, fuel efficiency, mileage, Congress, democrats, energy, commerce, cars, SUVs, trucks

I have spent some time in the past on the issue of clean coal, both on this site and on Urban Ecoist’s sistah-site, Daily Science Dose, here and here. So it won’t come as any secret to anyone that I am skeptical of the fossil fuel industry and I like sharing my skepticism with all my smart and well-groomed readers.

I received my first update from a group called the ACCCE. At first, I had to wonder what group this was, but I sign up for newsletters from many, many organizations, so it was perfectly reasonable for me not to figure out immediately that ACCCE stands for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The email itself doesn’t explain the acronym, but there are several handy links in the body of the message. One of which takes you to the Behind the Plug blog. Here, I’ll give you a link to it as well, it’s that awesome!

An example of pure comedy genius:

Today’s post is all about the “regrettable choice” that my home state of Michigan has made by forcing Big Coal to slow down plans to build more coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes State.

Recently, Michigan’s Governor has taken a stand to become a “green energy” state. The auto plants have let the state down, and she is looking to the future to save her sorry state. Have you not noticed the ads on TV every now and then (I usually see them during PGA Tour events) with Jeff Daniels talking about how great it is to do business in Michigan? Michigan is hurting, economically, as it has depended on old, dirty technology for far too long.

The Clean Coal blog claims that due to the automaker’s forced re-tooling, the state will be needing a “robust supply of baseload energy.” And renewable sources “will not be sufficient to meet that growing need.” No evidence to support that claim there, but why would Big Coal lie? Here’s the best part…

Gov. Granholm also set a goal to reduce the carbon footprint associated with power generation in her state. That goal can be best met through deploying new technologies that capture and store CO2, not through mandates that would lessen Michigan’s reliance on affordable, domestic energy resources like coal – which currently provides more than 60 percent of Michigan’s power.

There are currently eight new coal plants being proposed in Michigan. Each of these projects provides an opportunity to create jobs for Michigan workers and ensure that electricity production keeps pace with the state’s projected energy needs. These plants can be retrofitted with advanced technologies to capture and store CO2. In fact, given the time necessary to permit and construct a new power plant today, it’s possible that these technologies would become available for deployment at or very near the time these new plants are put into operation.

I added the emphasis on that last sentence.

So the argument is that coal will be just fine when the new technology is installed to capture the carbon and sequester it elsewhere. BUT…that technology is not available. The writer even admits that, but he lamely offers a possibility that those new technologies may prove successful enough by the time that these new coal plants are built that the plants can be retrofitted to reduce their emissions.

This post is just an example of the greenwashing going on. I am tempted to leave a comment, just for giggles, as the comment will only appear after being approved by the author.

And let’s look at the author. He’s Joe Lucas. He’s the ACCCE’s VP of Communications. And he also helped found a group called the Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which is one of two groups that merged to form the ACCCE. The ABEC was a lobbying group. They got their funding from guess who, the mining industry. In just the last year that ABEC operated, the group received over 3 million dollars in funding.

Huh, I guess that it is “possible” that Mr. Lucas is maybe just a little biased…

coal, clean coal, ACCCE, Americans Coalition for Clean Coal Technology, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, mining, Big Coal, carbon, Michigan, Governor Granholm, renewable, energy, automakers, technology, greenwashing, lobbyists

A new study came out that finds that by cutting pollution in your city, you can live longer.

More importantly, the study found that life expectancy increased by 3 years over the last 20 years (approximately) in 50 cities across America. It may be in all cities, and I’m sure you could draw that conclusion; I only add the 50 cities because that is what the study included. The researchers behind the study analyzed data sets comparing life spans and levels of particulate pollution from 1980 and 2000. As pollution levels dropped, life expectancy rose. Seems simple enough…

Actually, to put a finer point on it, your life was extended by 5 months because of a drop in air pollution. How they came up with five months, I don’t know, but wait, the article mentions that factors such as “such as changes in demographics, income, migration, population, education and cigarette smoking.” So I guess due to all those factors, we urbanites in the 50 cities included in the study are living 2.72 years longer than we did back in 1980. The air pollution accounts for 15% of that increase.

Neat.

Some of the very dirtiest cities saw an increase in life expectancy of 10 months due to the reduction in air pollution, thanks to the Clean Air Act. Although even relatively clean cities show a benefit to public health standards from additional reductions in air pollution levels.

This is good news for many reasons — longer, healthier lives for one — but this is good timing for all those who are trying to undermine the intentions of the Clean Air Act by ignoring some pollution and/or not enforcing limits on things that are produced by burning, say, gas or coal. Hopefully, with a new Administration and a new EPA administrator, the EPA will start regulating such things as carbon dioxide, and then new studies will show us in twenty years how we lengthened our lives by doing so.

Just a thought.

air pollution, health, life expectancy, cities, urban, America, US, Clean Air Act, pollution, particulates, gas, coal, public health

The wonderful thing about Urban Ecoists is that we are not only concerned about the immediate eco-system around us, but we see the macro-system as it is all inter-related. Healthy forests and rivers means healthy cities. Despite the fact, that we urbanites live in cities, we love our wilderness. And we love the myriad creatures that inhabit those places. We see protecting that wilderness and the organisms that dwell there as a sacred (not a word I use often) responsibility.

Too bad we don’t have an open season for this species…

In such, do you know what your lame duck president and his hench men are trying to do before they leave office? Well, I could never cover it all in this little blog, but today I will urge you to submit your comment during this next week to the Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne regarding proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. The public comment period ends September 15, 2008.

The changes in a nutshell are a good start at gutting the very things that have made to the Endangered Species Act a success. I will not bore you with all the details, I will let the Center for Biological Diversity do that for me, but essentially, the ESA works because any federal agency, such as the Office of Surface Mining, would have to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure that any new mine approved by the OSM would be environmentally-sound and not pose a danger to any, well, fish and wildlife. Do you like how I chose agencies whose names tell the story for me? A good writer is an efficient one, ask Hemingway. Not that I am comparing myself to Hemingway, oh, never mind. I’m lazy, there I said it.

Anyhoo, the new rules could lighten up on having “interagency checks and balances.” Also, the period for scientists to evaluate a project is cut by a third and automatically okay’d if the science doesn’t make the deadline. There are some other scary changes, too, like re-defining or limiting what effects would be considered harmful, and the like. Check out the Center for Biological Diversity’s website to find out more and to take action by emailing in a pre-written letter to Secretary Kempthorne and the Department of the Interior. I always like to email the [sic]President as well when it comes to these sorts of things. He whose name must not be named’s email is comments@whitehouse.gov.

Endangered Species Act, Dirk Kempthorne, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Fish and Wildlife Service, Center for Biological Diversity