Congress Mandates Low Tire Pressure Sensors by 2008 Vehicles
Following up on an older item from back in the day, automakers are supposed to be including low tire sensors on all new vehicles by next year.
As part of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000, Congress has mandated that automakers install tire pressure monitoring systems on all new cars, pickups and SUVs beginning in 2008.
To comply with the regulation, automakers will be required to attach tiny sensors to each wheel that will signal if a tire falls 25 percent below its recommended PSI rating. Car makers will likely spend as much as $70 per vehicle to install these sensors, a cost that will no doubt be passed along to consumers. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, some 120 lives a year will be saved once all new vehicles are equipped with such systems.
While this measure seeks to improve safety and and fuel efficiency, it’s not thinking things through. More sensors will just annoy us. The driver will still have to find an air pump and fill up their tires, knowing how to properly do it and where do find pressure information in their car. (HINT: Its on the A-pillar on the driver’s side door.)
How about you go the extra “mile” and equip cars with a self pressurizing system? It doesn’t have to be complicated. As we drive, air is compressed and fed into the front of the car. An additional compressor and pump could equalize tire pressure when sensors trigger a low pressure warning. It wouldn’t be enough to fill a flat tire, but it could certainly be enough to keep a constant pressure.
The technology is already there. Military HMMWVs (Humvees) have had the ability to increase/decrease their tire pressure from inside the cabin to quickly adjust to varying levels of terrain. A lower tire pressure, in this case, increases the tire’s footprint giving it more traction in sandy conditions.
See? Some good things come from Hummers.
via About.com and E/The Environmental Magazine, image via Edmunds
The Business of Climate Change II (abridged)
Energy Tech Stocks, the financial news site for the global energy tech revolution, reviews, at length, Lehman Brothers’ new report entitled, “The Business of Climate Change II.”
The full article is a four-part series at energytechstocks.com and part 4 of 4 has yet to be published, so I’ll give you the abridged version for you here so you can catch up.
The Lehman Brothers report points out that soon the global efforts to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be such that it will most certainly effect your stock portfolio.
. . . Lehman Brothers expects companies’ share prices increasingly to be affected by their “environmental performance, including their emissions of greenhouse gasses.” . . . It further warns that companies in some industries may be punished as a group because, no matter how much they reduce GHG, they will still generate more than other sectors and thus be seen as less desirable.
That doesn’t seem like much of an incentive for at-risk companies, if they’re going to be punished anyway.
. . . there is now a 75% probability (as opposed to just a 50% possibility earlier this year) that within the next three to five years there will be “some sort of greenhouse-gas-limiting agreement . . . involving the United States, China, and perhaps India” . . . [and] by around 2020, there will be a global carbon market the size of which, based on the value of permits issued, will “conservatively” be over $100 billion, covering around 50% of participants’ total emissions.
Also…
Lehman Brothers . . . predicts that whoever wins the White House in 2008 will move quickly to pass a federal carbon “cap-and-trade” scheme, joining a global carbon trading market that will take shape by 2012 including also Europe, Asia and maybe India . . . [where] companies and others will buy and sell emissions credits much as one buys and sells stocks and bonds.
Whether a company is a buyer or a seller will depend on whether the amount of carbon dioxide it pumps into the atmosphere annually from its manufacturing and other activities is above or below a government-set limit that will be systematically decreased every year in order to slowly squeeze carbon-emitting activities out of the economy.
Although the author uses the word “scheme” more than once, he also writes that the system will have:
an actual dollars-and-cents cost put on the emission of every ton of carbon dioxide . . . that will affect the bottom line of every corporation through a rise in the price of inputs that contain carbon.
To any economist or political scientist, this makes sense. You can’t expect results of large MNCs by appealing to their humanity. You have to show them how being green is not only economically feasible, but may actually open new profitable opportunities. Economists are currently doing the same thing addressing free market opportunities among countries in the BOP.
The report also points out that, although the math is tricky, any additional production costs as a result of these measures “may more than pay for itself in the creation of additional stockholder value as investors and fund managers increasingly seek out corporations with small “carbon footprints.”"
As you might expect, the report continues to predict good things about Europe, the U.S., and Japan, but is less optimistic for India and China citing China’s short-term approach as “inadequate” and that India will “well lag [behind] China.”
Part 4 of 4 will be published tomorrow, October 18, at EnergyTechStocks.com and will look at industries that could get hurt and helped by climate change.
Light Blub Shaped LEDs On The Way
English non-profit organization Ethical Consumer reports that “retailer B&Q is promising to stock a traditional light bulb shaped LED from September, while manufacturers Osram and Philips are planning to introduce new LED products for the home.”
So far, we’ve seen LED “bulbs” for intended home use, but the output has generally not been sufficient and the costs have been prohibative.
This bulb (above) for example, made by GBL offered by X-Treme Geek and reported by TreeHugger in February 2007, outputs 308 lumens using 150 warm white LEDs, rated at 9 Watts, and has an average lifespan of about 10 years. “It is said to be a replacement for a regular 70 Watt incandescent bulb. LED light tends to be sharper and more direct (perhaps the frosted bulb overcomes this problem).”
So far, LED bulbs (this one at least) cost between $60-$70 each, which makes the average $3-4 per CFL seem like a bargain, even if they do last 10 times longer (estimated). The big deal, one could argue is that LED bulbs do not contain the trace amounts of mercury that CFLs do. Cost and availability notwithstanding however, as the technology and manufacturing improves for LED, there’s still reason to believe we may see LED as the Go-To-Guy for incandescent replacement.
Via Ethical Consumer and TreeHugger
Gore Doesn’t Take the Money and Run
Al Gore: Former Vice President of the United States, Oscar winner*, Nobel Peace Laureate, Ecological Superhero, and able to grow a nifty beard in a single bound.
Recently, Albie sent out an e-mail to supporters announcing that he will be donating all the money from his recent joint-awarded Nobel Peace Prize ($750,000) to the Alliance for Climate Protection, the bipartisan organization he helped create.
I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis–a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.
My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.
Thank you,
Al Gore
As if winning (alright sharing) the Nobel Peace Price wasn’t enough to glorify the goodness of Gore, his donating the prize cashishe nearly makes him a down-right diety. Which raises many people’s desire for him to run for President in 2008 to a whole new level.
I understand this. But I think it’s completely crazy.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m very happy that Al Gore won this honor and what it means to the cause. But look at it this way: He was already in the White House once. NEARLY in the White House a second time as the Big Cheese, but lost out because of some hanging chads. But this turned out to be good for him, because he never had to discover how he would have reacted on that 11th of September. That aside, not winning the election gave him more time to spend on his little pet hobby: Saving the World. He’s been saying all along that things are getting worse and guess, what? It turns out he was right, so now he has that to brag about. What else?
Oh yeah, he just happen to make a movie about it (An Inconvenient Truth) that won an Academy Award, so now he’s a movie star. And as if that weren’t enough, he hung out with a few of his music industry friends for a little concert called Live Earth. You may have heard about it–a special event simultaneously broadcasting from New York, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Hamburg - as well as special broadcast events in Antarctica, Kyoto and Washington, DC.
And then Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. He just doesn’t leave any of the spotlight for the rest of us!
Although it would be the stately thing to do, Gore would be a fool to run for president now. First, his critics would lambaste him for using the Nobel Prize as the ultimate legitimizing qualification. (“Yes, Mr. Giuliani, but have you won the Nobel Peace Prize?”) Second, he’s in the catbird seat right now… why ruin that by running for President? He can say confidently that he would have done a better job as President and not actually have to prove it. He’s gained more clout and respect using his time outside of the White House than he would ever have gained if he were inside (with OR without the WTC attack). Third, the next President, Democrat OR Republican is going to have a complete uphill battle ahead of them. It could almost be considered a success if they didn’t get anything accomplished and just prevented anything else from going wrong.
Stating my position on the matter like this is breaking my first rule of unbiased journalism (more or less) and I realize that it’s probably going to be highly unpopular. But, for Gore to risk all of his success to-date for four to eight years of frustration seems foolish. Of course political science majors will say that he’s the perfect candidate; a philosopher king, if you will–the person most qualified and least interested in the job has a civic duty to perform the role.
But they’d be wrong. Gore would still be more valuable as an advisor to the next President. A President committed to change for the environment, for foreign and domestic policy, and for just setting a good example.
——————–
* Yes, technically I know Gore didn’t win the Oscar. The film won. Big woop.
Barack Obama Unveils Energy Strategy
Once upon a time, energy conservation was usually the realm of the hippies and/or city-fied liberals. But it seems that, now everyone’s talking about it. I remember in the early 90s, almost overnight, you couldn’t walk around 10 feet without hearing someone talk about “e-mail” and the “Internet.” They both existed before 1991, but it reached a point where it was on everyone’s lips. Much like the same way environmentalism and conservation is right now. Everyone is talking. And more importantly, many people doing something about it.
Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama unveiled his energy strategy on October 8 citing that the phasing out traditional incandescent light bulbs alone will save consumers 88 billion kilowatt hours resulting in a $6 billion a year savings on their electric bill.
According to a an ABC news report, although GE supports the idea of phasing out the old bulbs, some critics are afraid of possible opposition from labor unions like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
The reason, the report states, is that the incandescent bulbs are made here in the U.S., while most of the energy efficient light bulbs are made overseas.
Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy and Obama compaign advisor says, “The light bulb is the paradigm of how we blew it . . . America invented the light bulb, but ended up providing good jobs to someone else.”
Does this sound familiar? Practically anyone over, or around, the age of 40 will remember that before the the battle of HD-DVD vs. Blu Ray there was the battle of BetaMax vs. VHS. But did you know that the Video Cassette Recorder (or VCR) was first an American product? The first commercial VCR was made by a company called AMPEX in the mid-1950s with another by Phillips following in the early 60s. But most people never know this since the majority of the units, ever since were manufactured overseas in Japan and China.
While energy independence is a “Green” issue, it is also a domestic manufacturing issue that needs to be addressed. And I’m all for having the manufacturing discussion. How much longer will Americans put up with incidents like foreign-made children’s toys with hazardous lead paint will we endure before we revive American manufacturing?
via ABC News
Government Gone Wild: Ebell v. Presswood on Light Bulb Ban
Myron Ebell and Jim Presswood Debate Energy Efficient Light Bulbs (CNBC, 9/13/07)
Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell debates a proposal to ban traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2020 in favor of compact fluorescents (CFLs) with Jim Presswood, energy advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Although the host does not indicate in the report, the bill that they are referring to seems to be S.2017: Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act of 2007 introduced on Sep. 4, 2007 by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
The host does, however, awkwardly point out that CNBC is owned by General Electric as if that has something to do with what is reported.
Social Anxiety: Living in (and with) the Best Cities Lists
You frequently see lists of top cities in which to live from Forbes, Money, etc. This time, a real estate website called US Private Communities has outlined and summarized the top 27 (why 27?) most environmentally friendly cities in the United States to live.
Here’s the short version of the top ten:
- Austin, Texas
- Charlottesville, Virginia
- Eugene, Oregon
- Santa Rosa, California
- Honolulu, Hawaii
- Burlington, Vermont
- Huntsville, Alabama
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Denver, Colorado
- Lexington, Kentucky
- more…
It would be interesting to see the results if someone cross-referenced this list with that of, say, Money Magazine’s Best Places to Live, paying close attention to compare the selection criterion of the two lists.
Clean air, renewable energy and growth management are just some of the criterion US Private Communities cite in ranking their list, but I’m left with at least one nagging question either way.
It’s my estimation that the additional attention from “Best of” lists invariably threaten to overwhelm the recipients of those ranked in the first place. The good qualities of the best pizza, best zoo, or best restaurant, as well as the quaint characteristics of the best cities must decrease if a flood of people all migrate to it as a result of reading the list. How do you highlight and share interesting things and places without ruining them, even unintentionally?
Adam Sandler, in a pleasant out-of-character role in the movie Spanglish, plays a socially anxious chef who has a hard time anticipating his restaurant’s new review that is about to be published. He doesn’t want to be ranked too low and go out of business, but he doesn’t want the pressure of being ranked too high either. He just wants to get by with room to breathe and grow.
So of course, he gets an outstanding review that throws him into a panic.
That’s what I think the citizens and officials of “Best of” cities must feel. They must feel happy (and proud) to be on the list, but constantly worried that if they’re too high on the list they may risk losing what made the city great to begin with.
via Digg
Pedal Your Way to Better Lawn
Warren McLaren of Sydney, Australia discovered an entertaining concept while researching for his entry into the Innovate or Die Competition sponsored by Specialized Bicycles and Google. It seems that quite a few ingenious people have already thought it a good idea to marry push mowers and bicycles, creating an ecologically friendly exercise in alternative lawn maintenance. And you thought keeping up with The Jones’ was hard before!
Photo: Bob A. (Planet Natural)
One version, the B.O.B. Mower shown here, is a bicycle with a push (or reel) mower attached to the back via a B.O.B. bike trailer linkage. B.O.B. trailers are popular in themselves and are the shortened name of “Beast of Burden” trailers created by Roger Malinowski.
Now, I wouldn’t consider myself a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination, especially as I sit in my air-conditioned office, writing this on my 20″ iMac and high-speed interwebs. I just love my gadgets (probably way too much), but that doesn’t mean I can afford to be indifferent about the environment and the world in which I live. That being said, I can say that I have an affinity for two things quite low-tech: bicycles and push mowers.
You see, here in the metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, there aren’t many homes with property that exceeds a mere fraction of an acre. I never really understood people’s needs for a gas powered mower in these communities when you barely have any grass to mow. Although they don’t require much fuel, they still emit pollution, noise and otherwise, and I don’t see the return in investment if your yard is 0.15 acre. Traditional gas-fueled mowers, that aren’t self-propelled, are heavy and harder to push than your old-fashioned Sunlawn.
At any rate, I think the design of the B.O.B. Mower while funny and refreshing, seems like a good DIY project more than a functional garden tool. It could quite possibly gain a good sized cult following, however, if there were competitions where not only speed but grass mowing accuracy were involved. I’m sure the X-Games will pick it up next year.
I’m sure the French, famous for eating snails and the greatest international race in the world, the Tour de France, would never approve.
via TreeHugger
New Light Bulbs in Plain English
Lee LeFever explains, in this very cute and funny video, why we should switch to new compact fluorescent light bulbs often referred to as CFL bulbs.
Now, I know why we should switch. And I know you know why we should switch. But perhaps you might not know exactly how to explain it to someone like, say… your grandma in enough time before her stories comes back on.That’s where LeFever and his company, Common Craft, comes in. Their short instructional videos are part of a new series called Explanations in Plain English and uses a format they call “paperworks.” Paperworks is not quite animation and not quite stop motion. What it is, however, is quite fun and engaging.
Explanations in Plain English helps explain popular geeky subjects such as social networking, Wikis and RSS to non-geeky folks (like grandma!) in about 3.5 minutes. Not bad.
Introduction: Shining a Bright Light on Energy Issues
Yes. I know what you’re thinking. I can already sense it through the ethernet. You know it can go without being said, but you say it anyway and I totally understand.
You say, “Why on earth does the intarwebs need another blog about energy and environmentalism?”
Well, the truth is, I decided to start this blog as a result of some research I was conducting. It is true that there is no shortage of information regarding energy and environmentalism, but the particular information I was looking for was sporadic and widespread concerning the topics I was interested in: energy efficient lighting solutions, policy and regulation, and green design.
There are plenty of great things being done by individuals, companies and in Congress that should be highlighted just as there is plenty of issues that need to be discussed. But doing so shouldn’t be boring or written for the elite, academic or zealot. It should be something entertaining and informative for all people who are just trying to make the world a little bit better for themselves, their families and their friends.
And so here we are. Just you and me and one more blog among the 108 million other blogs (at least of those tracked by Technorati at this writing). But I hope you decide to come back, because I’m positive that, together, we can shine a bright light on energy issues that affect regular folks and demystify what people on the left AND right are talking about (or not talking enough about).
Please join us for Project Light Bright, a little blog about energy efficient lighting solutions, energy policy, politics, green design and the occasional celebrity gossip.
Project Light Bright: Reduce, Reuse, Replace, Recycle.