This is interesting and noteworthy:

Planning to fly off to the tropics? Well, its time you reconsidered your holiday plans, for according to a new research, a typical flight there has a greater impact on global warming than a flight in temperate latitudes.

As well as producing carbon dioxide and contrails, planes also produce nitrogen oxide, which triggers both the creation of the warming gas ozone, and the destruction of another greenhouse gas, methane, according to the study.

According to Keith Shine of the University of Reading, UK, in mid-latitudes, the ozone and methane reactions cancel each other out and you get zero net warming from nitrogen oxide emissions, reports New Scientist.

But the brighter sunlight in the tropics is very efficient at converting nitrogen oxide to ozone - in fact it creates ozone five times faster than in the air of mid-latitudes, according to Shine's calculations.

Whereas methane destruction only increases marginally, Shine added.

Hopefully when I'm ready to retire, train service to Florida will be much better than it is today, and then rail passengers can hop on my boat and I'll take you to any tropical island you want to visit :)

You gotta love the Club for Growth. If there's any aspect of pro-corporation PR they're not involved in, I'll be shocked. Of course, they've always loved fighting environmental legislation, which is why it's no surprise they're about to run a major ad campaign urging Congress to shoot down the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill.

A conservative, free-market advocacy group will begin airing ads this week pressing Senate Republicans and Democrats to vote against a bill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Club for Growth wants to scuttle a bill by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and John Warner, R-Va., that the Senate is scheduled to begin debating next month. Despite the ad campaign, the bill seems to lack the votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

With $250,000 in radio and television spots, the Club for Growth is targeting Republican Sens. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Democratic Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana. Dole, a co-sponsor of the bill, as well as Alexander, Baucus and Rockefeller face re-election this year.

This doesn't mean Lieberman-Warner is necessarily a good bill. But it is a pro-environment bill that will start the process of moving the U.S. in the right direction, even with the flaws it contains. It would be much better now, with a Republican in the White House, to pass this bill and send a notice to heavy polluters that times are about to change. Then when we get a Democrat elected to the office of President, we can really push for much more stringent standards, and push for truly effective environmental legislation.

Ford has made delivery of a fleet of new hydrogen-powered buses to the Detroit airport, replacing their old shuttle buses.

Ford Motor Company and U.S. Congressman John Dingell and the Wayne County Airport Authority today announced the delivery of two hydrogen-fueled Ford E-450 shuttle buses to be used for transporting airline passengers between terminals at Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW).

Today’s delivery is the result of a partnership involving Ford, the Wayne County Airport Authority and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). The project is being funded with a Department of Energy grant that was supported by Congressman Dingell, who represents Michigan’s 15th District.

Now, the buses aren't hydrogen electric buses, which is the ideal, but the buses have hydrogen-combustion engines. In other words, their still burning the fuel, just using a different fuel. This means that they're still creating greenhouse-gas emissions, but at a far lower level than diesel buses.

Some will argue that they should have gone the full route and used hydrogen-electric engines, but Ford clearly states that this is part of their research into hydrogen-powered vehicles, and not a long-term commercial solution in their eyes. As I see it, any reduction in CO² emissions is a good thing, and near-zero emissions is a lot better than current engines produce.

Greenfield Ethanol and Enerkem have signed a deal to make cellulosic ethanol a commercial reality. The agreement will see them collaborate 50/50 on projects to produce cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale.

The goal is to use Enerkem's technology, which converts biomass such as sorted municipal solid waste and urban wood residues into cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. It eliminates more than two tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHGs) per tonne of residues used as feedstock.

Cellulosic ethanol is preferred over typical ethanol fuel because it doesn't use food sources as feed stock. It can be produced using a variety of materials for feed, including most plant material and waste wood.

The growth of cellulosic ethanol usage could be a big boon to alternative fuel vehicles. By reducing the reliance on food-stock ethanol such as ethanal made from corn, it has the potential to become more widely accepted by the public, and can help push for the development of more flex-fuel vehicles, reducing the amount of CO2 added to the air from gasoline-fueled vehicles.

Plans are currently set to announce the first plant location in the coming weeks, with a second plant in the development stages.

Climate Progress has noted that California is going to be adding another number to the stickers on new cars starting next year. This time, it's a Climate Change Score (pdf).

Next to the smog score will be a global warming score. The California
Air Resources Board (CARB) is putting the finishing touches on the
program.

[...]

Vehicles are assigned a score of 1 to 10 based upon their emissions,
with 1 for the worst, and 10 for the lowest greenhouse gas emissions.
However, calling it a “Global Warming Score” and having 10 be the best
is likely to cause some confusion. Perhaps “Planet Saver Score” would
be better?

I have to agree. A "Global Warming Score" of 10 being better than 1 is a little awkward. Maybe it'll get changed by the time the program goes into effect next year.

The only bad thing about this is that state governments shouldn't have to develop these type of programs. This is something that the federal government should be doing, making it a nation-wide program. But hey, every little bit counts, I suppose.

Representative Peter Welch of Vermont submitted a bill on Thursday that would allow California and other states to set create their own laws regarding greenhouse gases and other emissions. The bill, H.R. 5560, was has 58 cosponsors. via Reuters.

A bill was introduced in the House
of Representatives on Thursday that would overturn the
Environmental Protection Agency's decision to prevent
California from limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
spewed by cars.

 

The EPA last December turned down California's request for
a waiver from federal law that would have permitted the state
to cut vehicle carbon dioxide emissions, which when implemented
would have likely have raised the required fuel efficiency of
cars and also fought global warming.

A group of 60 House lawmakers introduced legislation that
would immediately grant California's waiver request and also
clear the way for 12 other states to set vehicle tailpipe
emissions standards.

Some have questioned the legality of the EPA's decision not to allow states to set their own emissions standards, but it's widely believed that nothing will be done to pursue the issue within the executive branch. The question remains whether or not this bill can pass the House and Senate, and if it does, whether or not President Bush will allow it to become law.

The alternative is to wait a year and add this issue to the growing list of issues that our next President is going to have to fix.