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.

Yesterday I posted a short rant about the EPA apparently canceling plans to announce tougher restrictions on ozone emissions across the nation. Turns out, they only canceled the announcement, not the restrictions themselves.

The EPA did in fact issue new, tougher guidelines on ozone emissions, and they now say that 345 of 700 monitored counties now have air that is too dirty to breath.

The air in hundreds of U.S. counties is simply too dirty to breathe, the government said Wednesday, ordering a multibillion-dollar expansion of efforts to clean up smog in cities and towns nationwide.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced it was tightening the amount of ozone, commonly known as smog, that will be allowed in the air. But the lower standard still falls short of what most health experts say is needed to significantly reduce heart and asthma attacks from breathing smog-clogged air.

The question is, are they serious about enforcing the new standards? Apparently not...

Johnson said that state and local officials have considerable time to meet the requirements - as much as 20 years for some that have the most serious pollution problems. EPA estimates that by 2020 the number of counties failing to meet the new health standard will drop to about 28.

About 85 counties still fall short of the old standard enacted a decade ago.

In other words, the worst polluters in the nation have around 20 years to reduce the amount of ozone they're pumping into the atmosphere, regardless of the health impact it has on the people who live in those counties. The excuse is that because they are putting out more pollution, it will take them longer to reduce it.

Bullshit.

I've lived in a monitored county for most of my adult life, and believe me, if they want to meet ozone emission standards, they can do it. All it takes is the political will to enforce the law.

It's not like ozone emission standards are anything new. The counties that have problems now have had the same amount of time to reduce emissions as everyone else, for the most part, and the only reason they haven't reduced their ozone emission levels is for lack of the political will to enforce the standards.

And as much as I rag on corporations for fighting pollution standards, my neighbors are just as much a part of this particular problem as anybody else. Even so, it's still up to local officials to have the political will to enforce these standards. If my neighbor is out mowing his grass at 4:00 in the afternoon in 95 degree weather, not only is he an idiot, but he's contributing to my county's average ozone level. The cop driving down the street needs to stop, get out of his air-conditioned car, and either tell the guy to save it until later or write him a ticket.

Anyway, before I go on too much of a rant, let me finish up by saying one last thing. I'm glad the EPA is setting tougher ozone emission standards. This is a good thing. But it's not good enough.

We need to continue pushing for even tougher standards. This idea that dirty air is acceptable has got to be thrown out once and for all, and the only way to make that happen is by directly engaging the government. These standards are better than what we had before, but they're not good enough and we have to keep the pressure on.

As much as I hate to admit it, government is the only resource we have for solving problems like this, because they're the only ones with the authority to enforce high standards of air quality nation-wide. So rejoice in that this is a step forward, but keep pushing for even tougher regulations than we have now.

Oh, as an afterthought, let me give you one other thing to get pissed off about on this topic.

The science boards had told the agency that limits of 60 to 70 parts per billion are needed to protect the nation's most vulnerable citizens, especially children, the elderly and people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

"Today's decision means millions of Americans will not get the protection that the law requires," said Bernadette Toomey, president of the American Lung Association, which had strongly urged the EPA to follow the advice of the science boards.

Johnson said he took those recommendations into account, but disagreed with the scientists. "In the end it is a judgment. I followed my obligation. I followed the law. I adhered to the science," Johnson said in a conference call with reporters.

Johnson said he did not consider the cost of meeting the new air standard. States and counties would have to require emission reductions from factories, power plants and cars to meet the tougher health rules.

I only point this out because EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson just said very explicitly that science "is a judgment".

In a reality based world, that would be enough to get him fired. But right now we're living in bizarro-Republican land, and hell, that's about the best we're gonna get.

Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey have introduced a new bill that strictly limits how new coal-fired power plants are being built. From their announcement:

"Comprehensive economy-wide regulation to address global warming is coming soon," said Rep. Waxman. “But new uncontrolled coal-fired power plants are being built today. My legislation says: “No new plants without emissions controls.” The alternative is senseless - locking in decades of additional global warming emissions and requiring greater emissions reductions across the U.S. economy to compensate."

"If we lose control of coal, we will have lost control of the climate," said Markey, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "This bill will make companies prepare for the future and prevent them from building low-tech coal-fired power plants before a global warming bill is passed that will necessitate the use of the newest, most climate-friendly technology. "

Without emissions controls, a new coal-fired power plant will emit hundreds of millions of tons of global warming pollution over its fifty-year lifetime. Over 100 new plants have been proposed, and even if just a portion of these are built, they will emit over a hundred million tons of carbon dioxide a year. One of these plants alone could offset the reductions that will be achieved through the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The bill places a moratorium on either EPA or states issuing permits to new coal-fired power plants without state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester the plant's carbon dioxide emissions. The moratorium extends until a comprehensive federal regulatory program for global warming pollution is in place.

The bill also bars a new coal-fired power plant without state-of-the-art control technology from receiving any free or reduced cost emissions allowances under a future federal program to address global warming.

While it's not an outright ban on new coal-fired power plants, it may work out to becoming an effective ban. Companies are not going to want to build coal-fired power plants when the costs of meeting these strict requirements are so high.

An outright ban on coal power plants, while it would be the most desirable action, isn't likely to pass either the House or Senate. As it is, this bill is going to have a long, hard fight in order to make it to the President's desk. And I highly doubt the President will sign such a strongly worded bill.

But more often than not, legislation of this type takes three or four attempts before it becomes law, and with a new President in office in less than a year, chances are it's only a matter of time before coal goes away forever.

Keep in mind, however, that while people may not be totally against coal-fired power plants if they're permanently sequestering CO², there are still a lot of coal mines out there wreaking havoc on the environment. The only long-term solution is an outright ban, but I don't have a problem taking small steps towards that goal when the opportunity presents itself

The bill itself hasn't been assigned a number yet, and it isn't listed at the Library of Congress yet, but you can read the text of the bill as it was introduce here (pdf).

In commemoration of the fifth anniversary of the national do not call registry, ForestEthics has launched a new project to reduce paper waste called Do Not Mail. The goal of the campaign is to get Congress to pass a Do Not Mail registry law similar to the Do Not Call list.

Sadly, junk mail distributed in the United States currently accounts for 30% of all the mail delivered in the world, though 44% of it goes to landfills unopened. That's a lot of wasted trees.

A few notable names who have already signed onto the project are Adrian Grenier, Darryl Hannah, and Alicia Silverstone, among others. It's a project that almost everyone can agree on, if the success of sites like GreenDimes are any indication.

If you want to join them, sign the petition and then let your friends and family know about the project. Then use their online tool to opt-out of junk mail.

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.

Chicago-based ComEd (Exelon) is promoting a new initiative to reduce paper usage and waste by promising to donate trees when customers sign up for electronic billing and statements. From their news release:

To raise awareness about the environmental benefits of going paperless, ComEd this month pledges to donate one tree for every 100 customers who enroll in e-Bill and direct debit in March. The trees will be purchased for planting at the Morton Arboretum in Lisle, Ill., to commemorate Arbor Day.

ComEd customers can go paperless when they enroll in both e-Bill and direct debit.

ComEd claims this will reduce paper consumption by 1,344,000 pounds and save 13,000 trees, as well as reduce CO2 emissions by 3,399,000 pounds, which they say is the equivalent to taking 300 cars off the roads.

The question I frequently hear asked by opponents to this type of initiative is 'how much electricity will be used to send out electronic bills?' and the answer is very little. The machines used to send and receive electronic billing statements are the same machines that would be in use anyway, so any additional power consumption by using electronic systems is negligible, and the cost-benefit ratio always benefits switching to electronic systems.

To enroll in ComEd's paperless billing program, go to their website.