Uncategorized

Toyota to American public: we make bad cars too!

A wire story just caught my eye. The subject? How Toyota is preparing for the potential backlash caused by its growing popularity in the U.S. (Cue Lee Greenwood here.)

Seems that last month, Toyota's U.S. sales increased 7.8 percent, while GM's fell 5.5 percent and Ford's fell 3. It's just part of the bad Detroit juju of late. But according to this article, Toyota -- maker of some of the most fuel-efficient cars on the planet -- is hastening to remind us that it, too, makes gas guzzlers. And that it, too, could be hurt by tougher fuel economy standards in the U.S.

There are too many amazing angles to poke at here. But what a sad state we're in when the good guys have to pump up their bad reputation.

Environmental economics takes center stage

It seems like everyone has one of these newfangled "weblogs" these days -- which makes it all the more exciting when you find a really good one. Started just last week by two economics professors (but featuring contributions from many more), Environmental Economics has already featured fascinating posts on pollution regulations, carbon credits, and the high price of oil, among other things. And, of course, they are syndicated for all the RSS junkies like me out there.

Biodiversivist

I have a friend in Seattle (Ballard, to be more exact) who just bought a diesel Jetta. After doing much research on the subject (selectively reading articles that support biodiesel), she had concluded that it was the most ecologically sound vehicle available. She even has a bumper sticker to make sure everyone knows it: "Biodiesel: fuel for the revolution." Had she consulted me before her purchase, I might have convinced her to do otherwise (as I did with another friend who was also considering a Jetta). Biofuels are going to be bad news for the planet's biodiversity. As environmentalists, we should be resisting the idea, not promoting it.

Going coast to coast by rail.

As Dave points out, we have quite the task ahead of us when it comes to transitioning from an oil-based economy to one where oil is marginal. If oil is marginal, there's no way we keep up the same amount of air traffic we currently have.

But then, how would someone get from coast to coast? Right now the options in this future economy are not pretty. You could pay a premium for the traditional 6 hour flight. You could drive a car at a similar premium.

Carbon confusion

Joel Makower has a must-read post on the intricacies of so-called climate neutrality.

Say Company X manufactures a material; one day, it figures out how to manufacture the material more efficiently, or make it lighter, or some such.

The material is used by Company Y to make a product. With X's more-efficient, lighter material, Y is able to make its product lighter and more efficient, and thus reduce the product's CO2 emissions.

Who gets credit for the carbon reduction? A or B?

Now that CO2 emissions credits are a tradable commodity -- that is, worth money -- this is not an academic question. Figuring out just how credits are allocated is going to become a more and more pressing matter in coming years.

And, as Joel's post illustrates, it's going to be anything but a simple undertaking.

Honda diesel bunny game

So, remember when we told you about that surreal ad Honda UK made for their new, lower-emission diesel engines?

Well, now they have a game to go with it, and it is, if possible, even more surreal.

Vertical farming

A reader sent me a link to the very intriguing idea of vertical farming:

The concept of indoor farming is not new, since hothouse production of tomatoes, a wide variety of herbs, and other produce has been in vogue for some time. What is new is the urgent need to scale up this technology to accommodate another 3 billion people. An entirely new approach to indoor farming must be invented, employing cutting edge technologies. The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate). Vertical farms, many stories high, will be situated in the heart of the world's urban centers. If successfully implemented, they offer the promise of urban renewal, sustainable production of a safe and varied food supply (year-round crop production), and the eventual repair of ecosystems that have been sacrificed for horizontal farming.

It took humans 10,000 years to learn how to grow most of the crops we now take for granted. Along the way, we despoiled most of the land we worked, often turning verdant, natural ecozones into semi-arid deserts. Over 60% of the human population now lives vertically in cities. The time has arrived for us to learn how to grow our food that way, too. If we do not, then in just another 50 years, 3 billion people will surely go hungry, and the world will be a very unpleasant place in which to live.

Totally speculative and a long, long way from practicable, but: Awesome.

Of course, I meant to blog about it yesterday, and man, the blogosphere never sleeps, so BoingBoing and Alex beat me to it. Alex, as is his wont, includes beaucoup related links to ideas on urban sustainability. Check 'em out.

Klare on Simmons

We've mentioned Matthew Simmons' book Twilight in the Desert a couple of times (see, e.g., here). His thesis is that, despite what they say, the Saudis do not actually have any spare oil reserves. Their production is near its peak and will soon start declining.

If true, this is pretty bad news, because oil supply and oil demand are already closely matched, and if anything disrupts supply, the world will turn to Saudi Arabia to make up the slack. If they can't ... well, things could get ugly.

Today in the invaluable Tom's Dispatch, Michael Klare -- author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency -- takes a close look at Simmons' book. Give it a read.

The perfect storm is here, but politicians aren’t acting

The perfect storm is here, but the Senate isn't doing anything about it.

That's my one sentence paraphrase of this morning's Washington Post editorial.

Calling the energy bill "nothing to be proud of," they cite the big three:

• the skyrocketing market for crude and gasoline;
• instability in the nations that produce it; and
• an ever-growing consensus that global warming must be dealt with.

My question is, if the Senate doesn't take action to shift away from oil with this kind of impetus, what will it take?

This shift can be accomplished in two ways, as the editorial notes:

[The energy bill] still doesn't shift this country as far in the direction of alternative fuels as it should go, and of course it does not dare raise taxes on petroleum use in any way.

Any senator who wants to keep her job is going to pick promoting alternative fuels over taxing gasoline or ending the "de facto subsidies" it receives. Unfortunately, this course will inevitably take longer to have impacts.

On the other end, the skyrocketing market for gasoline is a mixed bag -- while it will make people look for long-term solutions to end their own dependence on petroleum, it will make politicians even less willing to hike gas taxes.

It’s gonna be ugly.

On Monday, the Supreme Court meets for the last time before its summer break. Several high-profile cases will be decided, but the real nail-biting anticipation is reserved for the possible retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, which would create the first vacancy on the court in 11 years. (Bill Kristol has speculated that it might be O'Connor, not Rehnquist, who retires next week, but popular conservative blog Redstate says nope, it's Rehnquist. These things are hard to predict.)

Thus far the White House has been mum about possible replacements, but names are a'floatin'. There's a great analysis of some possible candidates in this TNR piece.

Scuttlebutt in the progressive blogosphere has it that Bush will nominate the most outrageous far-right candidate possible, just to pick a fight and fire up his base. That is, after all, what he does. The conservative blogosphere relishes such a fight.

Everything I've seen inclines me to believe it's going to get ugly. Stay tuned.