Engineered Tobacco Plants Have Potential As Biofuel Feedstock; Expressing Oil in the Leaves
ARB Puts in Additional $8M for Port of Oakland Trucks

Governors of 11 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States Agree to Work Together Toward Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fuels; Timeline for Developing a Potential Low Carbon Fuel Standard for Region

Governors of 11 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states signed a Memorandum of Understanding that commits their states to continued participation in a regional effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fuels for vehicles and other uses. (Earlier post.)

A LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) program is a market-based, fuel-neutral program to address the carbon content of fuels. If adopted by states, it would apply to the transportation sector, and potentially to fuels used for heating buildings. A regional LCFS has the potential to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, which represent approximately 30% of emissions in the region, reduce regional vulnerability to petroleum price volatility, and facilitate the long-term transition from petroleum-based fuels in the transportation sector.

The LCFS would require regional fuel suppliers to demonstrate that the average carbon content of the fuel they deliver is reduced over time. A credit trading system will provide opportunities to control costs by allowing a supplier to purchase credits from low carbon fuels and average them with higher carbon fuels delivered to customers. Rather than imposing restrictions on specific fuel types, this approach allows fuel providers to choose among different fuels, based on cost effectiveness and environmental impact, in order to meet the carbon intensity reduction targets set by the program. This policy will allow the fuel industry flexibility to determine when and where new infrastructure can be introduced most efficiently, such as use of electric vehicles or additional supplies of liquid low carbon fuels.

In June 2008, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick sent a letter to the governors of all 10 member states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) inviting them to work with Massachusetts on developing a Low Carbon Fuel Standard that would apply to the entire region, creating a larger market for cleaner fuels, reducing emissions associated with global climate change, and supporting the development of clean energy technologies.

The Commonwealth’s Clean Energy Biofuels Act, signed in July 2008, also required Massachusetts to seek an agreement with its fellow RGGI member states to implement a LCFS on a regional basis. Based on Letters of Intent signed in December 2008 by state environmental commissioners, the participating states—the 10 RGGI states plus Pennsylvania—have been doing preliminary work toward designing a regional LCFS program.

The Memorandum of Understanding establishes a process to develop a regional framework by 2011, and to examine the economic impacts of a LCFS program. The states have committed to including strong business, energy and environmental stakeholder involvement in the process by providing opportunities for input and review of any proposed LCFS program.

Signing the Memorandum of Understanding were the Governors from Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The Memorandum of Understanding notes that the states have already demonstrated the success of regional emissions reduction programs with RGGI, which covers greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. According to the MOU, a regional program to address transportation and other fuels is prudent and efficient given the interconnected nature of the fuel distribution system in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region.

In the Memorandum, the 11 states agree to work together to analyze low carbon fuel supply options, determine the feasibility of achieving a range of reduction goals, including a 10% reduction in carbon intensity of fuels, and develop a framework for a regional LCFS in order to ensure sustainable use of renewable fuels in the region. The states are collaborating with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM).

The regional LCFS initiative is being coordinated by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).

Comments

HarveyD

USA seems to be catching up with Canada's continuous disputes between Fed & States-Provinces with regards to many issues including pollution controls, GHH and global warming.

Should our Demoncratic structures be up-dated to move out of this type of dead locks?

stomv

I think it's great that states aren't waiting for the US Congress to get moving -- hell, they could end up waiting a long time.

The Northeast has been pushing hard for a while, and they represent about 20-25% of the population. The West Coast has been doing the same, and they represent a bit less, about 17%. While they represent 40% of the population combined, we're only talking about 30% of the US Senate -- and therein lies the problem.

The climate change movement has got to get the Midwest and the Southwest on board. The Midwest has a big chunk of population, and is blueish. The Southwest has less, but NV and NM and CO have two senators too, and are also blue.

By not waiting around, the Northeast and West Coast are experimenting, finding out what works so that the Feds have a blueprint. Furthermore, they're generating support for those policies by demonstrating not only their effectiveness, but also that they don't "kill jobs" as the GOP is fond of claiming.

HarveyD

stomv:

The 2 Senator per State may not be very democratic. A Senator per 2 million may be more so and may reduce some delays.

Pao Chi Pien

Fuel chemical energy is converted into heat energy to increase the internal energy of cylinder gas by a combustion process. Only a small portion (about 25%) is transferred into brake power. A major portion of converted heat energy is transferred into coolant load. For a GDI engine operating at one-third load, the thermal efficiency is same as at full load. Because of much lower combustion pressure and temperature, the coolant load per unit power output is much smaller. Operating at one-third load, a GDI engine can save 50% fuel as compared with that at full load. An automotive engine should be designed at one-third load to have enough power to propel a middle size car at 70 mph speed on highway and to provide full power momentarily when needed. A technical document full describing this matter can be obtained by request.

The Goracle

.

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

Lets drastically increase taxes and take away freedoms because a religion (Globalwarmism) wants to appease their false god!!! People who don't walk or bicycle everywhere they go are EVIL!!!!

Please bring back the separation of church and state!

Now lets get back to digging out from the record cold and blizzards caused by Global Warming® (since rebranded Climate Change®, since rebranded CO2 Pollution®).

.

The Goracle

.

The 2 Senator per State may not be very democratic.

And thank God for that!!! We are a representative republic, and for good reason. If we were a true mob-rule democracy we'd have all kinds of idiotic, and, yes, racist (see the democrats of the 1960's blocking racial equality while the republicans voted to pass equal rights), laws.

.

HarveyD

The Goracle:

The USA Senate is no longer very representative. The largest State, with more population than the 24 smallest States has only 2 Senators while the 24 (with less total population) have 48 Senators.

This is much more like a private company where priviledged owners have 10x to 100x votes per share.

JosephT


Wow, the number of people who would fail a civics class is astounding.

"The 2 Senator per State may not be very democratic."

Yes it is, it makes sure that small states have an equal say, (Delaware = Texas).

Your representative resides in the House.

HarveyD

JT:

Where 25 very small states with less than 25% of the total population can block all legislation and effectively run the country, it would contitute a breach in democratic principles.

A person should have an equal vote no matter in which State. Otherwise, a Senator elected by 20 million voters vs another elected by 2 million voters should have 20 votes vs 2 in the Semate etc.

What appeared correct and relatively democratic 230 years ago may no longer be pertinent.

Equal representation, or close to, must be a guiding principle.

JosephT


Having 25 small states block legislation from time to time is Infinitely Better than having a few populous states run the entire country.

Mannstein

The country isn't ruled by the legislative or executive branch of government but by the Lobby. The politicians are all beholden to it. They tremble at the thought of its power.

Didn't anyone notice the demeaning spectacle which the candidates had to endure last summer before the AIPAC Convention in Washington?

What's it going to take before the US electorate finally wakes up?

But then again what can one expect from the masses whose only interest is the Sunday afternoon foot ball game and a refrigerator stocked with six packs of beer.

ToppaTom

"The Northeast has been pushing hard for a while, and they represent about 20-25% of the population. The West Coast has been doing the same, and they represent a bit less, about 17%. While they represent 40% of the population combined, we're only talking about 30% of the US Senate -- and therein lies the problem."

You do realize that 40% is not a majority.

" .. .. also that they don't "kill jobs" as the GOP is fond of claiming."

Claiming that reducing greenhouse gas emissions creates jobs is typical of the new "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." morality.

It is not totally wrong - it does create 1 job while it elimiantes many (as our exports become even less competative) - and it DOES create jobs in China.

The Goracle

.

Should our Demoncratic [sic] structures be up-dated to move out of this type of dead locks?

No doubt you'll LOVE that when the pendulum swings back due to the never-ending recession that Obama/Reid/Pelosi are gleefully foisting upon us. Making it easy to pass one's agenda goes both ways. It's MUCH better that the system work as it was designed - deliberative and slow. It's operating too fast as it is.

.

sulleny

Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence of man-made greenhouse gas affecting climate. NONE. And France confirms this with the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down their cap n trade regulations.

Australia - voted down cap n trade.
France - killed cap n trade
USA - cap n trade dead in water
India - cap n trade IPCC corruption disaster
China - no caps on emissions
COP15 - total collapse of carbon market

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pachauri-accusedmaking-%5Cfortune%5Ccarbon-trading-firms/380212/

Where will subversive markets get their money without carbon taxes??? They have to WORK for it???? The wheels on this wagon have fallen off.

sulleny

Goreacle,

just because CO2 causes plant life to grow as much as 30 percent more than without it, and is an integral part of biological respiration - doesn't mean the twisted EPA "endangerment" finding shouldn't declare it a "pollutant."

Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Martin Luther, Gandhi were also considered an endangerment to orthodoxy. Guess who turned out to be right??

The Goracle

.

sulleny,

Just because H2O causes plant life to grow as much as an infinite percentage more than without it, and is an integral part of biological system - doesn't mean the EPA shouldn't declare H2O a "pollutant."

Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Martin Luther, Gandhi were also considered an endangerment to orthodoxy. Guess who turned out to be right??

.

sulleny

Goreacle:

You are right. Ms. Jackson's EPA should move quickly to regulate the presence of H2O. It has recently been proven that humans breathing H2O leads to suffocation and death. Attempting to live in an H2O intensive environment (oceans, rivers, lakes) is also unsustainable to human life.

By outlawing access to and immersion in H2O we could save thousands of lives annually. A few $$billion in government grants to develop effective H2O sequestration is all that's needed to bring this grave threat under control.

danm

Goracle,
I followed your link and the second paragraph of your article states:
:
"However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase."

Perhaps you only read the headline.

danm

Goracle and Sulleny,
Can you two at least admit that the dependence of our transportation sector upon foreign oil is a bad thing?
Perhaps you are both agents of saudi arabia and venezuela.

The Goracle

.

danm,

An excerpt from what you just posted: "...some studies have suggested..."

Reading comprehension is not a strong point of your, is it? Suggested. Please think while you copy and paste. Thinking IS allowed you know! Well, I take that back. Globalwarmists are NOT allowed to think while the vast majority of the population does think and looks at all sides of the yet-to-be-resolved debate. See the majority not believing human caused temperature changes of the Earth for proof.

.

danm

Goracle,
I agree, the debate is still open and undecided. One study, on either side of the debate, does not prove anything. Yet you appear to have made up your mind.

Alain

Goracle and collegues,

"No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds"

Please, if you quote a title, interpret it accurately !

The study says that of every human gigaton of CO2 added to the ecosystem, the FRACTION that remains airborn remained approximately the same in the last 150 years. That means that for the last 150 years, about 45% of every gigaton remains in the atmosphere, and about 55% end up into the ocean and ecosystem. That means that still, for the last 150 years, every year the CO2-concentration increases in the atmosphere, and the increase increases ! At the same time the CO2-concentration continuously increases in the ocean (--> acidification)and other ecosystems. The percentage remains constant, but the increase increases even faster. That means that utnil now, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is attenuated because a constant FRACTION of the emissions is 'sequestered' in the oceans. BUT, the capacity of the oceans and ecosystems to absorb a constant FRACTION of the gigatons of human emissions seems to weeken. That means that in the (near ?) future, the FRACTION of CO2 emissions that stay airborn may even increase. That means that even when the total emissions don't increase, the atmospheric CO2-concentration will increase even faster than they do today !

A misinterpreted titel can be very convenient for people who like to dismiss even the most obvious scientific facts, it seems.

ai_vin

Alain, don't waste your time pointing out "facts" to the Goracle, he's the 'Kent Hovind' of the AGW debate.

Stan Peterson


alain,

If you criticize someone else for not understanding what a scientific paper purports to say, as you correctly do, please make the interpretation correct.

What you say is NOT what the research indicates at all.

It merely says that the proportion sequestered by each natural sink remains the same. It therefore disputes a fall back proposal that warmist-hysterics have advanced, that natural sequestration avenues are saturating, thereby imputing more sky-is-falling, doom to follow.

The research merely says that there is no indication of saturation by any natural sinks. The proportions sequestered in various sinks remains the same.

An open issue is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Long held Science says its is but 5.7 years for the mixture of carbon isotopes present in CO2. (99+% C12) This has been checked numerous times.

The warmist-hysterics have advanced a much longer resident time proposal, with times varying from 25 to 300 years. Obviously longer resident times allow more CO2 to accumulate, and longer time to act, hence more power to warm the climate. But they have never proven their thesis.

It easy to show that there must be a 'missing sink or reservoir' for such to be possibly true.

They have NEVER been able to show a single experiment confirming such a thesis, nor have they ever found their mysterious 'missing sink-reservoir'. But the hysteric-warmists constantly promise the next experiment will find it.

The IPCC declared in AR4, that they will return to Henry's Law of 5.7 years residence time, if the warmist-hysterics don't find their mysterious 'missing sink'. Meanwhile new research results, constantly affirm the old Henry's Law residence time of 5.7 years.

Rene

Its like having several laws passed for metal compliance and performance, on various industrial equipment. One company I will never forget is http://www.msitesting.com/, to sorted out most of my complicated metal related problems

The comments to this entry are closed.